This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A16-0290

Hugh Herman Hansen, petitioner,

Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,

Respondent.

Filed December 5, 2016

Reversed

Kirk, Judge

Faribault County District Court

File No. 22-CV-15-593

Thomas K. Hagen, Rosengren Kohlmeyer & Hagen Law Office, Chtd., Mankato, 

Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Lindsay LaVoie, Peter Magnuson, Assistant Attorneys 

General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent) 

Considered and decided by Kirk, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Bjorkman, 

Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

KIRK, Judge

Appellant challenges the revocation of his driver’s license, arguing that (1) his dueprocess rights were violated when he was advised by law enforcement that he could be 

criminally prosecuted if he refused to submit to a chemical test; (2) he did not freely and 
2

voluntarily consent to a warrantless blood test; and (3) his Fourth Amendment rights were 

violated by the warrantless blood test. We reverse. 

D E C I S I O N

The state cannot “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due 

process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 7. An

allegation of a due-process violation presents a question of constitutional law, which we 

review de novo. State v. Beecroft, 813 N.W.2d 814, 836 (Minn. 2012). 

At approximately 12:26 a.m. on July 25, 2015, Blue Earth Police Officer Chase 

Davis initiated a traffic stop of a Honda Civic after the vehicle’s driver failed to yield to 

another vehicle in a roundabout. Officer Davis identified the driver as appellant Hugh 

Herman Hansen. Hansen displayed several indicia of intoxication, and Officer Davis 

arrested him for driving while impaired (DWI) and transported him to the Faribault County 

Jail.

At the jail, Officer Davis read Hansen the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Implied 

Consent Advisory, which states in part that refusal to submit to chemical testing is a crime. 

Hansen stated that he understood the advisory and that he chose not to consult with an 

attorney. Officer Davis asked Hansen if he would submit to a blood test because there was 

no one at the jail who was qualified to administer a breath test. Hansen agreed, and he was 

transported to a hospital. A blood test revealed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.20. 

Respondent Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Hansen’s driver’s 

license. Hansen petitioned to rescind the revocation of his driver’s license. Following an 

evidentiary hearing, the district court sustained the revocation. 
3

On appeal, Hansen argues that his license revocation must be reversed because his 

due-process rights were violated by the misleading implied-consent advisory. He asserts 

that he agreed to submit to a blood test only after he was threatened with criminal charges 

that the state could not bring. The district court concluded that the implied-consent 

advisory was not misleading because the advisory was accurate at the time Officer Davis 

read it to Hansen.

In McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, the Minnesota Supreme Court held 

that a suspected drunk driver’s due-process rights were violated when the implied-consent 

advisory informed her that she might be prosecuted for refusing to submit to testing despite 

the fact that her driver’s license had not been previously revoked. 473 N.W.2d 848, 853 

(Minn. 1991). At the time, a previous revocation of a driver’s license was a prerequisite 

for a charge of refusing to submit to chemical testing. Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 169.123, 

subd. 2(b)(2) (1990)). The supreme court reasoned that the driver’s due-process rights 

were violated because the police officer threatened criminal charges that the state was not 

authorized to impose. Id. at 855.

Applying McDonnell, we noted that “[t]he focus of the supreme court’s concern was 

the inaccuracy of the advisory,” which “gives misleading and inaccurate information to 

every first-time offender,” regardless of whether the driver refuses or submits to testing. 

Steinolfson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 478 N.W.2d 808, 809 (Minn. App. 1992). “We 

decline to hold that the Commissioner may benefit from an advisory which our supreme 

court has determined misinformed the driver, and threatened criminal charges that were 

not actually authorized.” Id. While Hansen’s appeal was pending, this court held that a 
4

driver’s due-process rights were violated because the implied-consent advisory threatened

the driver with a criminal charge if he refused to consent to an unconstitutional urine test. 

Johnson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2016 WL 6570284 at *11 (Minn. 

App. Nov. 7, 2016). In sum, a driver’s due-process rights can be violated by a misleading 

advisory irrespective of whether the driver takes the test or refuses.

In State v. Trahan, the supreme court held that the state cannot criminally punish a 

driver for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood test under the exigent-circumstances 

exception. ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2016 WL 5930153 at *3 (Minn. Oct. 12, 2016). Here, 

the advisory given to Hansen was misleading because it misinformed him about the 

consequences of refusing to take a blood test. The fact that Hansen consented to a blood 

test does not change the due-process analysis. Because the advisory was misleading, 

Hansen’s right to due process was violated and the appropriate remedy is rescission of the 

revocation of his driver’s license. McDonnell, 473 N.W.2d at 853-55; Johnson, ___ 

N.W.2d at ___, 2016 WL 6570284 at *13. 

Because Hansen was denied his right to due process and is entitled to reinstatement 

of his driving privileges, we need not address his Fourth Amendment claims.

Reversed.