Opinion
A23-1545
05-10-2024
Sean Patrick Foley, petitioner, Respondent, v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Appellant.
Carver County District Court File No. 10-CV-23-533
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and Harris, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
JON SCHMIDT, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Commissioner of Public Safety (the commissioner) appeals the district court's order granting respondent Sean Patrick Foley's motion to rescind the revocation of his driver's license. The commissioner argues that the district court erred by determining that Foley was not properly advised of the consequences of refusing to comply with a search warrant when he was advised that the search warrant was for his blood, he agreed to take a blood test, but he was not advised that refusal is only a crime if he refused both a blood and urine test.
2. In March 2023, Foley was arrested for driving while impaired. At the hospital, a Carver County Sheriff's Deputy informed Foley that they had a warrant for Foley's blood because they believed he was under the influence of alcohol. Foley immediately agreed to provide a blood sample. Another deputy interjected and, after acknowledging that Foley stated he was willing to provide the sample, advised Foley that "we just have to tell ya that refusal is a crime." The subsequent blood test revealed Foley's alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.
3. The commissioner thereafter revoked Foley's license. Foley sought judicial review of the revocation.
4. The district court held an implied-consent hearing and received the deputy's body-camera video of the advisory. Relying on this court's decision in Nash v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 989 N.W.2d 705, 706 (Minn.App. 2023), rev'd, 4 N.W.3d 812 (Minn. 2024), the district court rescinded the revocation of Foley's driving privileges, holding that the advisory did not comply with the statutory requirements because the deputy did not mention a urine test. The commissioner appealed.
5. Minnesota law requires law enforcement to inform an individual at the time a blood or urine test is directed that "refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime." Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1 (2022).
6. On appeal, the commissioner conceded that the resolution of the issue is controlled by Nash. In Nash, this court considered whether an advisory was sufficient under Minnesota Statutes section 171.177, subdivision 1, when the officer told Nash "I applied for a search warrant for a blood draw, and refusal to take a test is a crime." Nash, 989 N.W.2d at 706. The officer made no mention of a urine test. Id. at 710. This court concluded that the advisory as given was "an inaccurate statement of law and misleading," and as such could not be a basis for Nash's license revocation because "the advisory informed Nash that he could be charged with a crime if he refused the blood test, even though the trooper had not offered Nash an alternative urine test." Id.
7. The Minnesota Supreme Court has since reversed this court's decision in Nash, concluding that an officer's statement of "refusal to take a test is a crime" satisfies the advisory required by section 171.177, subdivision 1. Nash v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 4 N.W.3d 812 (Minn. 2024).
8. Like in Nash, a deputy informed Foley that law enforcement had a warrant for Foley's blood because they believed he was under the influence of alcohol. After Foley agreed to provide a blood sample, another officer interjected and advised Foley that "refusal is a crime." The advisory here was nearly identical to the advisory in Nash.
9. Because this court is bound to apply supreme court precedent, the advisory provided to Foley was sufficient to sustain the revocation under the Minnesota Supreme Court's holding in Nash. See State v. M.L.A., 785 N.W.2d 763 (Minn.App. 2010) (stating that the court of appeals "is bound by supreme court precedent").
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is reversed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.