Bernard Brief Bank: Respondent's Briefs Are Filed
In case you didn't already know, the United States Supreme Court is set to determine whether or not Minnesota's DWI laws are constitutional. The highest Court accepted review of three cases - here they are, with hyperlinks to the Supreme Court docket for each case:
Bernard v. Minnesota (14-1470): is it constitutional for a state to criminalize the act of refusing to submit to a warrantless DWI search?
Birchfield v. North Dakota (14-1468): Is it constitutional for a state to criminalize the act of refusing to submit to a warrantless DWI search?
Beylund v. North Dakota (14-1507): Is it constitutional for a state to claim that a driver "consented" to a warrantless search when that driver was threatened with the crime of refusal?
TIMELINE:
The briefs in support of the Appellants (Bernard, Birchfield, and Beylund) have already been filed, as have the briefs filed by several amicus curiae ("Friends of the Court," attorneys love using Latin phrases).
Respondents (the States of Minnesota and North Dakota) recently filed their briefs, and we've provided copies of them below.
Oral Arguments are scheduled for April 20, 2016.
We expect a decision in June.
And one still-unresolved question is whether or not the cases will be heard by an 8 member court, or a full 9 member court.
BRIEFS:
Here is a link to our blog post providing the three "merits| briefs filed by the Petitioners.
Here is a link to half of the |amicus| briefs filed in support of the Petitioners.
Here is a link to the other half of the |amicus| briefs filed in support of Petitioners.
And, here's your update: The three |merits| briefs filed by Respondents (North Dakota and Minnesota)
Bernard v. Minnesota
Birchfield v. North Dakota
Beylund v. North Dakota
Check back often, we'll be posting the rest of the amicus briefs in support of Respondent soon (along with some analysis)