Cited by

State v. Bernard , , 773 (Minn. 2015).

B. Substantive due process The Due Process Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “prohibit certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Bernard , , 766 (Minn. 2015), aff'd sub nom.

“If a statute does not implicate a fundamental right, we assess its cons titutionality using rational basis revie w.” ().

Appellant moved to suppress the blood test results and dismiss the complaint; the court denied the motion in June 2015, determining that Minnesota’s 9-72 (Minn. 2013)

This exception allows police “to conduct a full search of the person who has been lawfully arrested.” State v. Bernard , (quotation omitted), aff’d sub nom .

If there is no fundamental right at stake, we ask whether the statute has a rational basis, which requires the state to show only that the statute “is a reasonable means to a permissive object.” State v. Bernard , (quotation omitted), aff’d sub nom.

d 762 (Minn. 2015), aff’d sub nom.

-74 (Minn. 2015), aff’d sub nom.

d 762, 773 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted), aff’d sub nom.

Applying Johnson here, we hold that the district court correctly reasoned that, aff’d, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), aff’d, d 216 (Minn. 2016), aff’d, 886 the advisory read to De Los Reyes inaccu

Furthermore, “[t]o survive a due process challenge using rational basis review, the statute must not be arbitrary and capricious.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION I. Udovich raises two substantive-due-process claims: (1) he was told that refusal to test is a crime, which he asserts was “of dubious constitutionality” because the United 2 aff’d sub nom.

After multiple continuances occasioned by Owens’s health problems and the supreme court’s aff’d sub nom.

(holding that a breath test is a constitutional search under the search-incident-to-arrest exception and that a driver may be criminally penalized for test refusal), aff’d sub nom.

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

We granted Trahan’s aff’d sub nom.

774 (Minn. 2015), aff’d sub nom.

-74 (Minn. 2015) (upholding constitutionality of criminal test-refusal statute as applied to breath tests), aff’d sub nom.

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2184 (2016) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving.”), aff’g

n.6 (Minn. 2015), aff’d sub nom.