If you only remember one point about refusing a breathalyzer in Minnesota, remember this: A first refusal typically results in a one-year license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior DWI or refusal history, with a right to an administrative and judicial review process. Refusal can be charged as a crime and carries penalties comparable to a test-failure DWI in many cases. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Minn. Stat. § 169A.51. Minnesota drivers must submit to chemical testing when an officer has probable cause for DWI and reads the implied-consent advisory. The statute covers breath, blood, and urine tests under chapter 169A.
Criminal consequences of refusal
Refusal can be charged as a crime and carries penalties comparable to a test-failure DWI in many cases. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant.
Under Birchfield v. North Dakota, the Fourth Amendment allows criminal penalties for refusing a warrantless breath test incident to a lawful DUI arrest, but generally requires a warrant (or a recognized exception) before the State may impose criminal penalties for refusing a blood draw. Missouri v. McNeely rejected a per-se exigency based solely on natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood. Minnesota statutes and case law implement those federal baselines with local detail.
Walking through Minnesota facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Minnesota authority does the work at each step.
A driver is arrested for DUI in Minnesota and refuses the evidentiary chemical test after the implied-consent advisory.
- Identify the administrative consequence under Minn. Stat. § 169A.51: A first refusal typically results in a one-year license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior DWI or refusal history, with a right to an administrative and judicial review process.
- Separate that track from the criminal case: Refusal can be charged as a crime and carries penalties comparable to a test-failure DWI in many cases. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant.
- Ask whether the refusal can be argued to the jury: Refusal is admissible in the DWI prosecution.
- If the request is for blood rather than breath, apply the warrant rule: Breath testing is the usual request; after Birchfield and related Minnesota Supreme Court decisions, criminal blood-test refusal generally requires that the blood draw be authorized by warrant.
In Minnesota the refusal question is answered first by Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, then by the administrative deadline and the criminal case.
Can refusal be used as evidence?
Refusal is admissible in the DWI prosecution.
Prosecutors often argue consciousness of guilt; defense counsel emphasize confusion, inadequate advisories, or medical inability to provide a sample. The precise jury instruction language is state-specific — search Minnesota opinions for “refusal” and “implied consent.”
Breath tests versus blood tests
Breath testing is the usual request; after Birchfield and related Minnesota Supreme Court decisions, criminal blood-test refusal generally requires that the blood draw be authorized by warrant.
Practical tip: a driver who refuses breath may still face a warrant-backed blood draw. Refusal does not create a permanent shield against chemical evidence; it mainly adds administrative (and sometimes criminal) consequences on top of the underlying DUI case.
Practical tips
- Ask whether the stop and arrest were lawful — implied consent usually requires a lawful DUI arrest first.
- Diary the administrative hearing deadline immediately.
- Do not confuse portable roadside breath screens with the evidentiary breathalyzer at the station; statutes often treat them differently.
- Research Minnesota opinions on implied consent, refusal, and license revocation in LawDiver before a contested DMV hearing.
Case law: implied consent and refusal in Minnesota
James Grover HOLTZ, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent
…to chemical testing under Minn.Stat. § 169.123, (1982), the implied consent law. Appellant raises two issues: whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to invoke the implied consent law and whether appellant was properly advised of his rights and obligations under the implied consent statute. 1 At approximately 1:00 a.m. on April 20, 1982, Orono police officers determined…
Practitioners open James Grover HOLTZ, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent when Minnesota implied consent / breathalyzer refusal turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Minn.Stat. § 169.123, (1982), the implied consent law. Appellant raises two issues: whether reasonable and probable grounds existed to invoke the implied consent law and whether appellant was properly advised of his rights and obligations under the implied consent statute." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In re SOURCE CODE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS IN IMPLIED CONSENT MATTERS, In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in C —
…er 5000EN results are unreliable if they report a deficient breath sample, unless there is evidence the deficient sample is not the result of a source code error. I dissent from the court’s second and third holdings because there will be cases in which the source code will be probative of whether the Intoxilyzer 5000EN produced an accurate numeric result or accurately reported…
Minnesota opinions such as In re SOURCE CODE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS IN IMPLIED CONSENT MATTERS, In re Source Code Evidentiary Hearings in C — are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "EN results are unreliable if they report a deficient breath sample, unless there is evidence the deficient sample is not the result of a source code error." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, v. ARTHUR WALLACE McWHITE
STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, v. ARTHUR WALLACE McWHITE, 286 Minn. 468 (1970)
…esult from a violation of § 169.121 and with respect to the implied consent statute, Minn. St. 1967, § 169.123. Sergeant Nord also asked McWhite to submit to a breath or urine test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. A direct blood test was neither offered nor available. McWhite asked the officer what he should do, but the officer told him he could not give advice,…
On implied consent / breathalyzer refusal, STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, v. ARTHUR WALLACE McWHITE speaks to the Minnesota dispute in this passage: "Minn. St. 1967, § 169.123. Sergeant Nord also asked McWhite to submit to a breath or urine test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. A direct blood test was neither offered nor available." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Minnesota v. William Robert BERNARD, Jr.
STATE of Minnesota v. William Robert BERNARD, Jr., 2014 Minn. App. LEXIS 27 (2014)
…to take a breath test requested by police under the state’s implied consent law. The state charged Bernard with the crime of test refusal. The district court dismissed the charge, reasoning that the Constitution prohibits the state from criminalizing refusal to submit to a search that could not be compelled without a warrant. We reverse because the state may prosecute a suspect…
Minnesota opinions such as STATE of Minnesota v. William Robert BERNARD, Jr. are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "The state charged Bernard with the crime of test refusal. The district court dismissed the charge, reasoning that the Constitution prohibits the state from criminalizing refusal to submit to a search that could not be compelled without a warrant." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Minnesota v. Scott Ross HUNN
STATE of Minnesota v. Scott Ross HUNN, 911 N.W.2d 816 (2018)
…ch to attempt to consult with counsel before complying with implied consent testing or refusing to do so ." 725 N.W.2d 99, 104 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis added); see also McDonnell v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety , 473 N.W.2d 848, 853 (Minn. 1991) ("[W]e limit the application of Friedman ... to any case in which the Implied Consent Advisory has been challenged ... and to any case arising…
Practitioners open STATE of Minnesota v. Scott Ross HUNN when Minnesota implied consent / breathalyzer refusal turns on the distinction in this sentence: "N.W.2d 99, 104 (Minn. 2006) (emphasis added); see also McDonnell v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety , 473 N.W.2d 848, 853 (Minn. 1991) ('[W]e limit the application of Friedman ... to any case in which the Implied Consent Advisory has been challenged ..." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State, Department of Public Safety, v. Clayton Giles Grovum; State, Department of Public Safety, v. Richard Michael
…e time of the refusal to take a chemical test of his blood, breath, or urine. We reverse. Each defendant was involved in a separate and unrelated motor vehicle accident, one on January 9, 1972, and one on February 2, 1972. By coincidence, the same peace officer responded to the report of each accident. In each case, believing there was probable cause that the defendant had been…
Minnesota opinions such as State, Department of Public Safety, v. Clayton Giles Grovum; State, Department of Public Safety, v. Richard Michael are cited where implied consent / breathalyzer refusal is disputed. The court stated: "We reverse. Each defendant was involved in a separate and unrelated motor vehicle accident, one on January 9, 1972, and one on February 2, 1972. By coincidence, the same peace officer responded to the report of each accident." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Paul Orlyn CARLSON, Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent
…ning the revocation of his driver’s license pursuant to the implied consent law. We affirm. FACTS On February 26, 1984, Paul Orlyn Carlson was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and failing to stop at a stop sign. The arresting officer offered Carlson a breath test, as provided under Minnesota’s implied consent law, Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2 (Supp.198…
On implied consent / breathalyzer refusal, Paul Orlyn CARLSON, Petitioner, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent speaks to the Minnesota dispute in this passage: "We affirm. FACTS On February 26, 1984, Paul Orlyn Carlson was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol and failing to stop at a stop sign. The arresting officer offered Carlson a breath test, as provided under Minnesota’s implied consent law, Minn.Stat. § 169." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Key takeaways
- Primary authority: Minn. Stat. § 169A.51.
- Administrative hit: A first refusal typically results in a one-year license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior DWI or refusal history, with a right to an administrative and judicial review process.
- Criminal exposure: Refusal can be charged as a crime and carries penalties comparable to a test-failure DWI in many cases.
- Evidence: Refusal is admissible in the DWI prosecution.
- Blood vs. breath: federal Supreme Court doctrine in Birchfield and McNeely still frames warrant rules.
Implied consent in Minnesota
Minnesota drivers must submit to chemical testing when an officer has probable cause for DWI and reads the implied-consent advisory. The statute covers breath, blood, and urine tests under chapter 169A.
Implied consent is not the same as a Miranda warning. Officers typically must advise of the consequences of refusal before requesting a chemical test. Failure to give a required advisory can affect whether the administrative suspension sticks — a frequent issue in Minnesota appellate opinions.
License suspension and administrative hearings
A first refusal typically results in a one-year license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior DWI or refusal history, with a right to an administrative and judicial review process.
The DMV / administrative track often runs separately from the criminal DUI case. Missing the short window to request an administrative hearing can lock in a suspension even if the criminal charge is later reduced or dismissed. Always calendar the administrative deadline the same day as the arrest.
Frequently asked questions
What happens if I refuse a breathalyzer in Minnesota?
A first refusal typically results in a one-year license revocation; longer revocations apply with prior DWI or refusal history, with a right to an administrative and judicial review process. Refusal can be charged as a crime and carries penalties comparable to a test-failure DWI in many cases.
Is refusal a separate crime in Minnesota?
Refusal can be charged as a crime and carries penalties comparable to a test-failure DWI in many cases. Birchfield permits criminal penalties for breath refusal; blood draws for criminal punishment generally require a warrant.
Will the prosecutor tell the jury I refused?
Refusal is admissible in the DWI prosecution.
Do I need a warrant for a blood draw?
Breath testing is the usual request; after Birchfield and related Minnesota Supreme Court decisions, criminal blood-test refusal generally requires that the blood draw be authorized by warrant. See also Birchfield and McNeely linked above.