State v. Bernard

Why This Case Matters

State v. Bernard is a key Minnesota case on whether the government can make it a crime to refuse a breath test during a DWI stop. The Court of Appeals held that criminalizing refusal does not violate the Fourth Amendment when the officer had enough evidence to have obtained a warrant for a nonconsensual test. This case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court as part of Birchfield v. North Dakota, making it one of the most consequential DWI cases to originate in Minnesota.

The Facts

Police responded to a report of a truck stuck in the water at a boat ramp in South Saint Paul. When officers arrived, they found William Robert Bernard, Jr. near the truck. He was partially clothed, unsteady on his feet, and smelled of alcohol. Bernard denied that he had been driving. However, witnesses at the scene identified him as the driver, and he was holding the truck keys.

Officers asked Bernard to perform field sobriety tests. He refused. Based on the witness statements, his physical condition, and the smell of alcohol, officers arrested Bernard on suspicion of driving while impaired. At the police station, officers read Bernard the implied consent advisory and asked him to take a breath test. Bernard refused.

Bernard was charged with two counts of first-degree DWI test refusal under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20. He moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that criminalizing his refusal to take a warrantless breath test violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court agreed and dismissed the charges. The State appealed.

What the Court Decided

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and reinstated the charges. The court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit Minnesota from criminalizing a suspected drunk driver’s refusal to submit to a breath test. The key was that the circumstances gave the officer enough evidence to have obtained a search warrant for a nonconsensual breath test. Because a warrant could have been obtained, making refusal a crime did not impose an unconstitutional condition.

The court distinguished breath tests from blood tests, noting that a breath test is less intrusive. The court also emphasized that Minnesota’s implied consent law serves a compelling interest in keeping impaired drivers off the road.

This case was later affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court at 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015). It was then consolidated with Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016), at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Birchfield, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states may criminalize refusal of a breath test incident to a lawful DWI arrest, but may not criminalize refusal of a blood test without a warrant.

What This Means for You

• Refusing a breath test can be a crime. Under Minnesota’s implied consent law, if you are lawfully arrested for DWI and refuse to take a breath test, you can be charged with a crime — separate from and in addition to the underlying DWI.
• Breath tests and blood tests are treated differently. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield, police can require a breath test incident to a lawful arrest. But a blood test generally requires a warrant or your consent.
• Implied consent means you already agreed. By driving on Minnesota roads, you have implicitly consented to chemical testing if arrested for DWI. Refusing carries its own legal consequences, including criminal charges and license revocation.
• The officer must have probable cause. The test refusal charge requires that the officer had a lawful basis to arrest you. If the arrest itself was unlawful, the refusal charge may be challenged.
• Consult a DWI attorney promptly. If you have been charged with test refusal or DWI, talk to a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. The timelines for challenging license revocation are short, and the legal issues are fact-specific.