I could be wrong, but I thought the police only needed probable cause that the driver was guilty of criminal vehicular injury. And according to
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin....609.21I
Minnesota State law if you leave the scene of an accident involving injuries you're guilty of criminal vehicular injury and that's enough to take blood without consulting with the driver.
QUOTE
609.21 CRIMINAL VEHICULAR HOMICIDE AND INJURY.
Subdivision 1. Criminal vehicular homicide. A person is guilty of criminal vehicular
homicide resulting in death and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or
to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both, if the person causes the death of a human
being not constituting murder or manslaughter as a result of operating a motor vehicle:
(1) in a grossly negligent manner;
(2) in a negligent manner while under the influence of:
(i) alcohol;
(ii) a controlled substance; or
(iii) any combination of those elements;
(3) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more;
(4) while having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, as measured within two hours of
the time of driving;
(5) in a negligent manner while knowingly under the influence of a hazardous substance;
(6) in a negligent manner while any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule I or
II, other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols, is present in the person's body; or
(7) where the driver who causes the accident leaves the scene of the accident in violation of
section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6.
Here's Subd 1 and 6 from 169.09
QUOTE
Subdivision 1. Driver to stop for accident with individual. The driver of any motor vehicle
involved in an accident resulting in immediately demonstrable bodily injury to or death of any
individual shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident, or as close to the scene
as possible but shall then return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident,
until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of this section as to the giving of information. The
stop must be made without unnecessarily obstructing traffic.
Subd. 6. Notice of personal injury. The driver of a
vehicle involved in an accident resulting
in bodily injury to or death of any individual shall, after compliance with this section and by the
quickest means of communication, give notice of the accident to the local police department if the
accident occurs within a municipality, to a State Patrol officer if the accident occurs on a trunk
highway, or to the office of the sheriff of the county.
And here is a MN Court of Appeals ruling on findlaw.com that says the traditional rule is that you can take blood if the driver has committed CVO.
QUOTE
We start our analysis with the traditional rule allowing nonconsensual blood testing in cases of suspected CVO. Police officers in Minnesota, at least since the 1980 Aguirre decision, have been able to rely on a “bright-line” rule that a blood test may be taken without reading the implied consent advisory if there is probable cause to believe the driver has committed CVO. See State v. Schauer , 501 N.W.2d 673, 675 n.1 (Minn. App. 1993) (noting police department policy of ordering nonconsensual testing in cases in which CVO could be charged). The supreme court in Aguirre , in supporting this “bright-line” rule, emphasized the gravity of CVO, a felony offense, as compared with the ordinary misdemeanor DWI case in which the implied consent advisory was mandatory. 295 N.W.2d at 82. The CVO statute, however, has been amended since Aguirre to include gross misdemeanor CVO. Minn. Stat. § 609.21, subd. 2b (1996).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts....invol=1
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
