of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts
Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota.
William A. Lemons, Scott A. Hersey, Special Assistant Mower
County Attorneys, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kristen Nelsen,
Mower County Attorney, for respondent.
Brandon V. Lawhead, Lawhead Law Offices, Austin, Minnesota,
Heather Robertson, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minneapolis City
J. Koewler, Ramsay Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota,
for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense
William Ward, Minnesota State Public Defender, Cathryn
Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Saint Paul,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Board of Public
request to consent to urine testing, a driver's limited
constitutional right to counsel recognized in Friedman v.
Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn.
1991), is not triggered unless the statutory implied-consent
advisory is read.
Scott Ross Hunn was stopped and arrested for driving while
impaired (DWI). At the jail, the sheriff's deputy,
without reading the implied-consent advisory, asked him if he
would consent to urine testing. Hunn provided a urine sample,
which tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.
Hunn was charged with second-degree DWI for violating
Minnesota Statutes § 169A.20. subd. 1(7) (2016). On
Hunn's motion, the district court suppressed the urine
test results because the deputy failed to read the
implied-consent advisory that would have advised Hunn of his
right to counsel. The court of appeals reversed, concluding
that, because the advisory was not read, there was no
violation of the limited right to counsel that we recognized
in Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473
N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991). State v. Hunn, 899 N.W.2d
541, 545 (Minn.App. 2017). Because Friedman applies
only to implied-consent cases, we affirm the court of
February 21, 2016, appellant Scott Ross Hunn was pulled over
by a Mower County sheriff's deputy for rolling through a
stop sign. Hunn told the deputy that he had consumed one
beer. The deputy observed that Hunn "spoke in a rapid
fashion, struggled to stay on topic in conversation, had
dilated pupils and seemed very nervous." These
observations led the deputy to suspect that Hunn was under
the influence of a controlled substance, so he asked Hunn to
perform field sobriety tests. Hunn successfully performed the
walk-and-turn test, but failed the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus
and one-leg-stand tests. His preliminary breath test was
under the legal limit for alcohol. Following these tests,
Hunn was placed under arrest for DWI.
was taken to the Mower County Jail. At the jail, without
reading the implied-consent advisory, the deputy asked Hunn,
"Will you take a urine test?" Hunn answered,
"Why not?" and the deputy responded, "So
yes." The deputy never told Hunn that he had the right
to speak with an attorney, nor did Hunn ask to contact one.
No warrant was obtained for the urine ...