1. On a
petition for postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. ch. 590
(2018) asserting the invalidity of a test-refusal conviction
under Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. __, 136
S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), and Johnson v.
State, 916 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 2018), the petitioner bears
the burden to allege and prove there was neither a warrant
nor an applicable exception to the warrant requirement.
2. In a
Birchfield / Johnson
postconviction proceeding, a heightened pleading standard
applies. Under this standard: (a) the petitioner must
affirmatively allege that no search warrant was issued and
that no warrant exception was applicable; and (b) if the
State wishes to controvert those allegations, it must plead
specifically the existence of the warrant or exception relied
on and the grounds therefor in sufficient detail to give the
petitioner adequate notice of the States position.
Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Amy Lawler,
Assistant Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for
Ellison, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Peter
Orput, Washington County Attorney, Nicholas Hydukovich,
Assistant Washington County Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota,
case requires that we decide whether, on a petition for
postconviction relief under Minn. Stat. ch. 590 (2018)
the invalidity of a test-refusal conviction under
Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. __, 136 S.Ct.
2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), and Johnson v. State,
916 N.W.2d 674 (Minn. 2018), the petitioner bears the burden
to allege and prove that no applicable exception to the
warrant requirement applies. Johnson made
retroactive the rule announced in Birchfield that,
in the absence of a warrant or an exception to the warrant
requirement, refusal to submit to a blood or urine test
cannot be criminalized. The district court denied respondent
Jason Fagins request for postconviction relief because he
failed to prove there was no applicable exception to the
warrant requirement. Concluding that the district court erred
by placing the burden of proof on Fagin instead of the State,
the court of appeals reversed and remanded for further
proceedings. Because the district court properly placed the
burden of proof on Fagin, we reverse the decision of the
court of appeals. We also announce a heightened pleading
standard for Birchfield / Johnson
postconviction proceedings. We remand to the district court
to allow supplemental pleadings under this standard and
reconsideration of Fagins request for postconviction relief.
2:00 a.m. on March 22, 2012, the Washington County Sheriffs
Department received a report of a car stopped across two
lanes of traffic on a rural road. When deputies arrived, they
found two unconscious men. The deputy who walked up to the
drivers side of the car noticed that the drivers left shoe
was off, his left sock was pulled down, and his left foot was
placed over his right knee. The deputy immediately suspected
that the driver had injected himself with a narcotic and
deputies woke up the men. As he awakened, the driver sped
away. The car stopped about 30 seconds later. The deputies
ordered the men out of the car and took them into custody. A
pat search of the driver, later identified as respondent
Jason Fagin, produced a plastic bag that the deputies
believed contained methamphetamine. They described Fagin as
"extremely impaired." In the car, the deputies
found several needles, syringes, spoons, and other items
often used with narcotics.
was booked into the Washington County Jail. A deputy read
Fagin the implied-consent advisory, and asked him whether he
understood. Fagin did. The deputy asked Fagin whether he
would like to speak with an attorney. Fagin declined. The
deputy asked if he would take a urine test. Fagin declined.
Fagin also declined a blood test. Fagin later told deputies
that he would take a urine test, but then changed his mind.
Then he again ...