State V Mulcahy Continued
Contents
State V Mulcahy Continued
Lawyers seem to love precedents. They cite them all the time. But what do these precedents really mean for normal people? Let’s break down the implications of State v. Mulcahy—a case that could have big consequences for defendants in DUI cases.
Background
First, some background. Mulcahy was pulled over for weaving between lanes. The officer smelled alcohol and administered field sobriety tests, which Mulcahy failed. He was arrested for DUI. At the station, Mulcahy refused a breathalyzer test. This meant he lost his driver’s license for a year under Minnesota’s implied consent law.
But Mulcahy challenged the test refusal. His lawyer argued it violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. The case went all the way up to the Minnesota Supreme Court. And they agreed with Mulcahy! This was a huge win for DUI defendants.
What the Ruling Means
The Supreme Court said requiring a warrantless breath test after an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment. This precedent gives DUI defendants a powerful new argument.
Before, police could force you to take a breath test if they had probable cause you were drunk. That’s thanks to our implied consent laws that say driving is consent to be tested. But now, forced breath tests are an unconstitutional search without a warrant!
This gives defendants a way to avoid breath evidence. And it prevents officers from getting instant BAC results. For DUI lawyers, Mulcahy is a big deal. As one attorney put it, “This decision provides greater protection for drivers against warrantless searches.”
Impact on DUI Cases
So what does Mulcahy mean for DUI defendants? Well, now if you refuse a breath test, you can try to get the refusal thrown out.
Your lawyer can argue it was an illegal warrantless search. If a judge agrees, prosecutors lose key evidence of your BAC. And your license can’t be revoked for test refusal either. That’s huge!
Without BAC results, DUI convictions are way harder to get. As this analysis shows, Mulcahy will likely lead to more acquittals and plea bargains in borderline cases.
But it’s not all good news for defendants. Police can still get warrants for blood draws in many cases. And there are ways around Mulcahy. Like if you cause an injury accident or already have multiple DUIs.
What Happens Next?
This decision will impact a lot of cases. But there are still open questions about how far it reaches. Can police still do non-invasive roadside sobriety tests? What about breath tests after a warrant? These issues will likely spark more litigation.
Prosecutors want to undo Mulcahy too. Some are pushing for new laws to get around it. But so far, the legislature hasn’t made major changes.
Meanwhile, officers are adjusting procedures for warrantless searches. And they’re using more drug recognition experts to show impairment without BAC. So Mulcahy isn’t a magic wand for defendants.
The Bottom Line
Mulcahy gives DUI defendants important new protections. But it doesn’t make drunk driving charges go away. There are still other ways to prove intoxication. And police are adapting to the new limits on warrantless searches.
This case is a big step toward stronger Fourth Amendment rights. But it’s just one part of the ongoing tug-of-war between privacy and public safety. This back-and-forth will continue as both sides try to shape DUI laws.
Wherever it leads, Mulcahy gave defendants a new tool to fight breath test evidence. It creates more hurdles for convictions—especially in borderline cases. And it reaffirms our right against unreasonable searches, despite implied consent laws. For defense lawyers, that’s something to celebrate.