Cited by

“A warrantless search is generally unreasonable, unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.”

(noting that, under the search-incident-to-lawful-arrest exception to the warrant requirement, “the police are authorized to conduct a full search of the person who has been lawfully arrested” 11 (quotation omitted)), aff’d sub nom.

“When assessing a due process challenge, the analysis [appellate courts] apply depends on whether the statute implicates a fundamental right.”

(recognizing “the severe threat that impaired drivers pose to the public’s safety” (quotation omitted)); see also Boude v. City of Raymore, Missouri , 855 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2017) (concluding that officer acted reasonably by reach ing into car, turning off ignition, and physically removing i

One well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to arrest, which allows police to search a person who has been lawfully arrested and “the area within his or her immediate control to remove weapons and to seize evidence.” , aff’d sub nom.

hat a warrantless search of the defendant’s automobile did not fall under the search-incident-to- arrest exception when the search involved the vehicle from which the defendant was arrested because law enforcement had secured the defendant in the back of a squad car, eliminating the concerns from which the exception derives—officer safety and evidence preservation); (discussing the above aspects of Gant), aff’d sub nom.

Dep’t of Transp., 579 U.S. 438, 474, 478 (2016) ( and a Minnesota defendant’s conviction in a “criminal[] prosecut[ion] for refusing a warrantless breath test” that the defendant “had no right to refuse”).

5 Here, we note that the district court had no record from which it could have made any determination about the status or nature of Fohrenkam’s 5 See, 631 (Minn. 2018) (pat-frisk, community- caretaker, and exigent-circumstances exceptions); (automobile exception); (search incident to lawful arrest); -54 (Minn. 2003) (actual-authority-to-consent, apparent-authority-to-consent, plain-view, and inevitable- discovery exceptions).

“When assessing 5 a due process challenge, the analysis [appellate courts] apply depends on whether the statute implicates a fundamental right.”

A long-standing exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment, however, is a search incident to lawful arrest, which allows the police “to conduct a ‘full search of the person’ who has been lawfully arrested.” –67 (Minn. 2015) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973)).

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well -recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” (citing Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009)).

One well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is a search incident to arrest, which allows police to search a person who has been lawfully arrested and “the area within his or her immediate control to remove weapons and to seize evidence.” aff’d sub nom.

Warrantless searches and seizures are generally unreasonable, and evidence obtained during a warrantless search is inadmissible at trial unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies, State v. Hummel

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well- recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” d 762, 766 (Minn. 2015) (citing Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009)).

-67 (Minn. 2015) (citing Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 (2009)).

( “A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well -recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.”).

As stated in State v. Bernard, Minnesota’s test-refusal statute “makes it a crime for a driver to refuse a request to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol if certain conditions are met.”

“A sear ch incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.”

d 762, 767 (Minn. 2015) (concluding that warrantless breath test, as search incident to arrest, does not violate Fourth Amendment).

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.”

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Bernard , aff’d sub.

” State v. Bernard , (quotation omitted).

A warrantless search is unreasonable “unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.”

“A search incident to a lawful arre st is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Bernard , aff’d sub nom.

“A warrantless search is generally unreasonable, unless it falls into one of the recognized exceptio ns to the warrant requirement.” State v. Bernard , aff’d sub nom.

Therefore, refusal to give a blood sample by a person suspected of driving under the 2 aff’d sub nom.

Search incident to arrest The search -incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement permits an officer to “conduct a full search of the person who has been lawfully arrested.” (quotation omitted), aff’d sub nom.

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.”

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well -recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” aff’d sub.

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” aff’d sub.

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” d 762, 766 (Minn. 2015), aff’d sub nom.