Cited by

See S n.1 (Minn. App. 2015) (“Generally, issues not raised or argued in an appellant’s principal brief cannot be revived in a reply brief.”) , aff’d

2160 , 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), and our decisions in State v. Trahan , and State v. Thompson , announced a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.

Because the Supreme Court ’s decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota , 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), d 216 (Minn. 2016), created a class of people constitutionally immune from p unishment, the rule announced by these cases is substantive and applies retroactively to final convictions on collateral review.

Owens argues that three cases, Brooks, this court’s aff’d and Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), were all decided before Owens’s jury trial; that a reasonably competent attorney would have known about all three cases ; and that his attorney should have relied on them to argue that he did not voluntarily consent to his urine sample being t

d 224, 234 (Minn. 2016).

aff’d, (holding the defendant ’s conviction for refusing to submit to a warrantless urine test violated his substantive due process rights ).

In 2016, Strom petitioned for post - in which the supreme court held that a person may not be criminally punished for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood test or a warrantless urine test .

n. App. 2015) (holding that a driver may not be prosecuted under test-refusal statute for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood test), aff’d, see 4 -80 (Minn. App. 2015) (holding that a driver may not be prosecuted under Minnesota’s test -refusal statute for re fusing to submit to a warrantless urine test), aff’d

(citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct.

In the postconviction proceedings, as well as his brief to this court, Brooks relied on this court’s aff'd on other grounds, cert.

S Y L L A B U S The rules announced in Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), cert.

See also Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2185 (holding that breath testing is a categorically valid search incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment but blood testing is not); (holding that urine testing is not a valid search incident to arrest under the Fourth Amendment); (holding that the Fourth Amendment does not permit prosecution for refusal to submit to a blood test absent a warrant or valid exception to the warran

The supreme court recently held that a driver “cannot be prosecuted for refusing to submit to an unconstitutional warrantless blood or urine test.”

This court held in State v. Thompson, issued after appellant’s arrest, that a warrantless urine test could not “be justified under the search-incident-to-arrest exception.” aff’d

(determining the exception does not authorize blood tests)

1-2 (2014); (Thompson I), aff’d