Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02878/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02878-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard W. Stanek
Appellee
Rebecca J. Wall
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2878

___________________________

Rebecca J. Wall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Richard W. Stanek, in his official capacity only

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: May 14, 2015

 Filed: July 21, 2015

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

____________

RILEY, Chief Judge.

This case requires us to rule upon the validity of a suspected impaired driver’s

consent to a blood-alcohol test when the driver was correctly informed beforehand

that it is a crime to refuse the test. Having agreed to a blood-alcohol test under these

circumstances, Rebecca Wall now brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Hennepin

County Sheriff Richard Stanek in his official capacity (county), alleging the county

had a policy or practice of conducting warrantless, nonconsensual blood-alcoholtests,

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
which violated Wall’s Fourth Amendment rights. The district court disagreed,

1

finding no constitutional violation and no county liability under Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Wall appeals, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 20, 2011, Hennepin County Sheriff’s

Deputy Barbara Russeth stopped Wall for a traffic violation. Upon her exiting the

vehicle, Wall smelled of alcohol, exhibited poor balance,failedmultiple field sobriety

tests, and in a preliminary breath test, she produced a blood-alcohol concentration

(BAC) of .109—beyond the .08 legal threshold, see Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd.

1(5). Based on these results, Deputy Russeth arrested Wall and arranged for her car

to be towed.

At around 1:40 a.m., they arrived at patrol headquarters, where DeputyRusseth

sought Wall’s consent to conduct a urine or blood test to determine Wall’s BAC. In 2

compliance with Minnesota’s Implied Consent Law, see Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd.

2, Deputy Russeth read aloud the state’s “implied consent advisory,” informing Wall

that (1) she was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired, (2) “Minnesota law

require[d her] to take a test” of alcohol content, (3) “[r]efusal to take a test [wa]s a

crime,” and (4) “[b]efore making [he]r decision about testing, [she] ha[d] the right to

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

Wall does not question Deputy Russeth’s insistence that Wall take a urine or 2

blood test as opposed to a less intrusive, additional breath test. See, e.g., Minn. Stat.

§ 169A.51, subd. 3 (permitting the officer to “direct whether the test is of blood,

breath, or urine,” but generally prohibiting the officer from singling out either blood

or urine as the sole test). The record does not disclose the differences in availability

or efficacy of the three tests.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
consult with an attorney.” Affirming her understanding of her rights and disclaiming

her right to consult an attorney, Wall agreed to a urinalysis.

After about forty-five minutes, Wall had not produced a urine sample, so

DeputyRusseth transported Wall to the Hennepin County MedicalCenter whereWall

agreed, at 2:58 a.m., to a blood analysis. Deputy Russeth then instructed a registered

nurse to draw a blood sample. Analysis of the sample indicated a BAC of .06. Wall

pled guilty to a petty misdemeanor traffic violation and her DWI charge was

dismissed.

B. Procedural History

Wall brought this lawsuit, alleging the county had a policy or custom of

conducting warrantless, nonconsensual blood-alcohol tests in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. The county filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Wall had

voluntarily consented to the blood draw. Following the reasoning of the Minnesota

Supreme Court in State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563, 565, 572 (Minn. 2013), the

district court agreed that Wall’s consent made the blood draw constitutional and

granted summary judgment in the county’s favor. Wall timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

“‘On appeal, this court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo, and

reviews the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party.’” Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Prof’l Aircraft Line Serv., 776 F.3d 575,

578 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Moody v. Vozel, 771 F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 2014)). 

For the county to be liable, Wall must prove its policies or customs caused a violation

of her constitutional rights. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-92. Absent a constitutional

violation, “there can be no liability for the county.” Hawkins v. Gage Cnty., Neb.,

759 F.3d 951, 959 (8th Cir. 2014).

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
TheFourth Amendment protects againstintrusions upon a person’s “‘legitimate

expectation of privacy,’” which exists where “the individual, by h[er] conduct, has

‘exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy’” and this expectation “is ‘one

that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.’” Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S.

735, 740 (1979) (quoting Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan,

J., concurring)). No one questions Wall’s subjective expectation of privacy over her

own blood, and all agree Wall’s blood draw “infringe[d] an expectation of privacy

that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,” as did “[t]he ensuing chemical

analysis of the sample to obtain physiological data.” Skinner v. Ry. Labor

Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616 (1989). 

The real question at issue is whether this “search[]” was truly “unreasonable.” 

U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619 (“[T]he Fourth Amendment

does not proscribe all searches and seizures, but only those that are unreasonable.”). 

“What is reasonable, of course, ‘depends on all of the circumstances surrounding the

search or seizure and the nature of the search or seizure itself,’” which entails

“‘balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its

promotion of legitimate governmental interests.’” Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619 (quoting

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537 (1985), and Delaware v.

Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654 (1979)). 

A consent search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Fernandez

v. California, 571 U.S. ___, ___, 134 S. Ct. 1126, 1132 (2014). The county has

provided undisputed evidence showing Wall consented to the blood draw after she

was unable to produce a urine sample. See Der v. Connolly, 666 F.3d 1120, 1128

(8th Cir. 2012) (explaining the defendant only has the burden of producing evidence

of consent in § 1983 actions). Because Wall challenges the validity of this consent,

she bears the burden of proving her “will [was] overborne and h[er] capacity for selfdetermination critically impaired.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225

(1973); see also Der, 666 F.3d at 1128 (“[T]he ultimate risk of nonpersuasion must

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
remain squarely on the plaintiff.” (quotation omitted)). Wall endeavors to do this not

by focusing on the circumstances, surroundings, or manner of Deputy Russeth’s

request, but by contending that the choice between consent and punishable refusal,

see Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2, placed Wall in an unconstitutional dilemma.

The United States Supreme Court has previously examined the dilemma

created by similar implied consent laws. In South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553

(1983), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of South Dakota’s implied

consent statute, under which the price of refusing a blood-alcohol test was the oneyear revocation of a suspect’s license (after a hearing) and the ability to use the

suspect’s refusal against him at trial. See id. at 559-60. As to the license revocation,

the Court decided this penalty was “unquestionably legitimate, assuming appropriate

procedural protections.” Id. at 560. The Court also determined that the Fifth

Amendment did not preclude the state fromusing the defendant’s refusal against him

at trial, because “[t]he simple blood-alcohol test is so safe, painless, and

commonplace” that “the State could legitimately compel the suspect, against his will,

to accede to the test.” Id. at 563. “Given . . . that the offer of taking a blood-alcohol

test is clearly legitimate,” the Court reasoned that “the action becomes no less

legitimate when the State offers a second option of refusing the test, with the

attendant penalties for making that choice.” Id.

Minnesota goes a step further by imposing direct criminal consequences on

refusal. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2. The reasoning in Neville, however, gave

no apparent regard to the harshness of “the attendant penalties for making th[e]

choice” to refuse a test. Neville, 459 U.S. at 563. And the challenged law in Neville

also imposed criminal consequences on a suspect’s refusal—the state could convict

the suspect of a DWI using the refusal as evidence of impaired driving. See id. at

560, 562-63.

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
The recent four-Justice plurality opinion in Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S.

___, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), addressed the concern that “applying the traditional

Fourth Amendment totality-of-the-circumstances analysis to determine whether an

exigency justified a warrantless search will undermine the governmental interest in

preventing and prosecuting drunk-driving offenses.” Id. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1565-

66. The plurality emphasized that while the balance of state interests against private

interests in bodily integrity did not justify a per se exigent circumstance exception to

the Fourth Amendment, states still “have a broad range of legal tools to enforce their

drunk-driving laws and to secure BAC evidence without undertaking warrantless

nonconsensual blood draws.” Id. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1564-66. “For example,” the

plurality explained, “all 50 States have adopted implied consent laws that require

motorists, as a condition of operating a motor vehicle within the State, to consent to

BAC testing if they are arrested or otherwise detained on suspicion of a drunk-driving

offense” and “impose significant consequences when a motorist withdraws consent.” 

Id. at 1566.

Though Wall’s straightforward coercion argument has some appeal, the general

principles upon which she relies bend to the Supreme Court’s specific guidance on

implied-consent laws. Cf. United States v. Mosley, 505 F.3d 804, 811 (8th Cir. 2007)

(“The Supreme Court has made clear that ‘if a precedent of [the] Court has direct

application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of

decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls,

leaving to [the] Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’” (alterations

in original) (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S.

477, 484 (1989))).

The Supreme Court “has repeatedly lamented” “[t]he carnage caused by drunk

drivers” and the “tragic frequency” with which drunk drivers appear “on our Nation’s

highways.” Neville, 459 U.S. at 558; see, e.g., McNeely, 569 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct.

at 1565 (plurality opinion) (“While some progress has been made, drunk driving

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
continues to exact a terrible toll on our society.”); Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432,

439 (1957) (“The increasing slaughter on our highways, most of which should be

avoidable, now reaches the astounding figures only heard of on the battlefield.”).

And while a blood draw is unquestionably a “search” which implicates

important “‘deep-rooted’” privacy interests, McNeely, 569 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at

1558 (majority opinion) (quoting Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760 (1985)), the

Court has “said also that the intrusion occasioned by a blood test is not significant,

since such ‘tests are a commonplace in these days of periodic physical examinations

and experience with them teachesthat the quantity of blood extracted is minimal, and

that for most people the procedure involves virtually no risk, trauma, or pain.’” 

Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625 (quoting Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 771

(1966)); see, e.g., Neville, 459 U.S. at 563 (“The simple blood-alcohol test is. . . safe,

painless, and commonplace.”);Breithaupt, 352 U.S. at 436 (“The blood test procedure

has become routine in our everyday life.”). As “a highly effective means of

determining the degree to which a person is under the influence of alcohol,”

Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 771, the Court has “confirmed ‘society’s judgment that blood

tests do not constitute an unduly extensive imposition on an individual’s privacy and

bodily integrity,’” Skinner, 489 U.S. at 625 (quoting Winston, 470 U.S. at 762), and

recognizes “that medically drawn blood tests are reasonable in appropriate

circumstances,” McNeely, 569 U.S. at ___, 133 S. Ct. at 1565 (plurality opinion). 

The discussions of implied consent laws in Neville and in the McNeely plurality

opinion support the conclusion that such “appropriate circumstances” were present

here.

By choosing to “drive[] . . . a motor vehicle within [Minnesota],” Wall was

deemed by Minnesota law to have initially “consent[ed] . . . to a chemical test of [her]

blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol.” Minn.

Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 1(a). Consistent with Minnesota’s implied consent law,

Deputy Russeth only requested a fluid sample after Wall failed numerous field tests,

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168 
including a preliminary breath test, giving Deputy Russeth probable cause to suspect

Wall was driving while impaired. See id. § 169A.51, subd. 1(b)(4) (“The test may be

required of a person when an officer has probable cause to believe the person was

driving [while impaired] . . . and . . . the screening test . . . indicated an alcohol

concentration of 0.08 or more.”). In requesting Wall’s consent, Deputy Russeth read

Minnesota’s implied consent advisory, asking Wall to decide between consent and

refusal and explaining she could first consult an attorney. See id. § 169A.51, subd.

2(a).

“[T]he choice to submit or refuse to take a blood-alcohol test will not be an

easy or pleasant one for a suspect to make[, b]ut the criminal process often requires

suspects and defendants to make difficult choices.” Neville, 459 U.S. at 564. Wall’s

choice was undoubtedly difficult in view of the penalties of refusal, but the implied

consent procedure is an important “legal tool[]” states have at their disposal “to

enforce their drunk-driving laws and secure BAC evidence.” McNeely, 569 U.S. at

___, 133 S. Ct. at 1566 (plurality opinion). Wall’s dilemma, alone, does not satisfy

her burden of nullifying her otherwise uninhibited consent. See Der, 666 F.3d at

1128.

III. CONCLUSION

Finding no Fourth Amendment violation, we affirm the district court’s grant

of summary judgment in the county’s favor.

______________________________

-8-

Appellate Case: 14-2878 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/21/2015 Entry ID: 4297168