31 William Mitchell Law Review 1461 (2004-2005)
This analysis of the constitutionality of Minnesota’s prehearing revocation scheme begins by explaining the mechanics of Minnesota’s implied consent statute. Because the United States Supreme Court has established minimum procedural due process protections that must be afforded drivers, this backdrop is examined. After considering the federal standards for procedural due process, the numerous changes to Minnesota’s implied consent statute will be addressed. Next, the current challenge will be discussed, including the factual basis for the challenge, the arguments for the statute’s unconstitutionality, and the district court’s decision. Finally, this note will conclude that, given the dramatic increase in the private interest at stake and the complete lack of any procedural due process protections, Minnesota’s current pre-hearing revocation scheme is unconstitutional.
Sheridan, Jeffrey S. and Booth, Erika Burkhart
"Revoke First, Ask Questions Later: Challenging Minnesota’s Unconstitutional Pre-hearing Revocation Scheme,"
William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 31:
4, Article 5.
Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol31/iss4/5