DECISION The issue in this case regards the validity and reliability of the BCA urine-testing procedures, an issue that has already been addressed by this court in Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. App. 2009), pet. for review filed (Minn. Nov. 6, 2009), and Genung v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 589 N.W.2d 311 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999).
This court "appl[ies] an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to a district court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony." Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 136-37 (Minn. App. 2009). When an officer has probable cause to believe that a person is driving while impaired, the officer may require the person to consent to a test of the person's "blood, breath, or urine" to determine the presence of alcohol or controlled substances.
In addition, the Rules of Evidence apply. See In re Source Code, 816 N.W.2d at 539-43; Hayes v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 136-38 (Minn. App. 2009). A district court may admit relevant evidence and may exclude evidence that is not relevant.
Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 136-37 (Minn. App. 2009). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, this court will not reverse a district court's evidentiary ruling.
2007). In Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. App. 2009), a case arising out of an implied-consent proceeding, this court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding proffered expert evidence challenging the scientific validity of a first-void urine sample on the theory that urine pooling may inaccurately measure a person's alcohol concentration. The Hayes court reasoned that the license-revocation statute focuses on the result of a chemical test, not on the question of whether a driver was in fact impaired.
In addition, the Rules of Evidence apply. See In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in Implied Consent Matters, 816 N.W.2d 525, 539-43 (Minn. 2012); Hayes v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 136-38 (Minn. App. 2009). A district court may admit relevant evidence and may exclude evidence that is not relevant.
Alcohol testing has been determined reliable and is consistently relied upon by courts. E.g., Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Dec. 23, 2009).
Thus, a driver's fundamental Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search may be overcome by an officer's choice to offer a breath test, instead of a blood or urine test, which, Johnson contends, creates intentional and purposeful discrimination. This court addressed a similar equal-protection argument in Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134 (Minn. App. 2009). In Hayes, the commissioner of public safety revoked Hayes's driver's license after Hayes was arrested for DWI and submitted to a urine test that revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.13.
He has made only the bald assertion that his right to equal protection was violated. See Hayes v. Comm'r of Public Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 140 (Minn. App. 2009) (rejecting Hayes's equal-protection challenge to the implied-consent law based, in part, on Hayes's failure to offer evidence of discrimination); State v. Hyland, 431 N.W.2d 868, 873 (Minn. App. 1988) (concluding that Hyland's "general, conclusory allegation that discriminatory enforcement occurred" was "frivolous"). Therefore, we agree with the district court that appellant failed to establish a violation of his right to equal protection.
Appellant's second argument is foreclosed by precedent, as we have previously "held that a urine test administered without a prior void is a valid and reliable testing method." Hayes v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 773 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Minn. App. 2009). Finally, as to appellant's third argument, State v. Hawkinson, 829 N.W.2d 367 (Minn.