State of Minnesota v. Wesley Eugene Brooks

Summary

The court affirmed Brooks’s three first-degree impaired-driving convictions, holding that the warrantless blood and urine searches were valid because Brooks voluntarily consented under the totality of the circumstances. The court rejected the arguments that criminal penalties for refusal made the consent involuntary and that Minnesota’s implied-consent statute was unconstitutional. Justice Stras concurred only in the judgment, rejecting the majority’s consent analysis and favoring admission under a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.