Court Opinion

ID: 9577878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:39:04.010801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:24.452834
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, Justice
(concurring specially).
Although it seems unfair that Janice Ny-flot could not call her attorney for sound and trusted advice when confronted with what she considered questionable advice by the police, it is now clear, after the recent amendment to Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2, that this is exactly what the legislature intended. Act of May 2, 1984, ch. 622, § 10, 1984 Minn.Laws 1541, 1546. Only a constitutional restriction could overrule this legislative result: that one has the right to consult an attorney only “after submitting to testing.” Minn.Stat. § 169.-123, subd. 2(b)(4) (1984). It seems clear to me that the constitutional issue has been answered by Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), and its progeny. Schmerber says: *518“The question is squarely presented therefore, whether the chemical analysis introduced in evidence in this case should have been excluded as the product of an unconstitutional search and seizure.” 384 U.S. at 766-67, 86 S.Ct. at 1833. The testing for blood alcohol is a Fourth Amendment matter, a search and seizure. There is no constitutional right to consult-an attorney before a search is conducted. This issue is therefore resolved by the determination of legislative intent, as discussed by the majority, with whom I agree.