of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts
Charles A. Ramsay, Daniel J. Koewler, Ramsay Law Firm,
P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota; and Brian M. Glodosky, Kelsey
Law Office, P.A., Cambridge, Minnesota, for respondent.
Swanson, Attorney General, Peter D. Magnuson, Assistant
Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for appellant.
the reading of the implied consent advisory did not prejudice
respondent, a rescission of respondent's driver's
license revocation is not required under McDonnell v.
Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848');">473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn.
Commissioner of Public Safety revoked respondent Tyler Lee
Johnson's driver's license after his arrest on
suspicion of driving while impaired and refusal to submit to
blood and urine tests. Johnson petitioned the district court
to review the revocation, arguing that his due process rights
were violated when he was read an inaccurate implied consent
advisory. The district court agreed with Johnson and
rescinded the revocation. The court of appeals affirmed.
Johnson v. Comm'r Pub. Safety, 887 N.W.2d 281,
295 (Minn.App. 2016). Because the reading of the implied
consent advisory did not prejudice Johnson, we reverse.
November 9, 2015, a police officer responded to the scene of
a car accident. Respondent Tyler Lee Johnson had driven
through an intersection and collided with a tree. The officer
discovered Johnson sitting in the driver's seat of the
car, talking on his cell phone, seemingly unconcerned with
the accident and unaware of the officer's presence.
officer asked Johnson to get out of the car and, after
Johnson did so, the officer saw a large bottle of pills
between the driver's seat and the center console. The
pills were a variety of colors and styles. Johnson admitted
that the pill bottle belonged to him. Johnson submitted to,
and failed, field sobriety tests and refused to submit to a
preliminary breath test. The officer suspected, however, that
Johnson had not consumed alcohol because Johnson showed no
"clues" on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. The
officer arrested Johnson on suspicion of driving under the
influence of a controlled substance.
officer read Johnson an implied consent advisory that stated
that refusal to submit to a urine test was a crime. The
officer waited a little more than an hour for Johnson to
contact an attorney, after which the officer asked Johnson to
submit to urine and blood tests. Johnson refused to submit to
either test. Appellant Commissioner of Public Safety revoked
Johnson's driver's license for refusing to submit to
sought judicial review of his license revocation. The
district court rescinded the revocation, finding that the
implied consent advisory was misleading because it
incorrectly stated that refusal to submit to a urine test was
a crime. Relying on McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public
Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848');">473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991), the district court
concluded that the advisory violated Johnson's due
process right to not be misled by the threat of legally
court of appeals affirmed the district court.
Johnson, 887 N.W.2d at 295. Applying
McDonnell, the court of appeals concluded that the
implied consent advisory was inaccurate because none of the
exceptions to the warrant requirement advanced by the
Commissioner encompassed a compelled urine test. Id.
at 289-91. It upheld the rescission on the basis that the
threat of ...