Minnesota drivers with Wisconsin OWI refusals just gained an important protection: a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision holds that refusing a warrantless blood test in Wisconsin cannot, by itself, be used to suspend your Minnesota driver’s license under Minnesota’s implied-consent and license-suspension laws.
Case overview: Hoffman v. Commissioner of Public Safety
In Hoffman v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Feb. 23, 2026), the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a Ramsey County district court order rescinding the suspension of a Minnesota driver’s license. The driver, a Minnesota license holder, was arrested in Wisconsin for operating while impaired and later convicted in Wisconsin for refusing a post-arrest chemical blood test under Wisconsin law. Wisconsin then reported that refusal conviction to Minnesota, and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) suspended her Minnesota driving privileges under Minnesota law.
The driver petitioned for judicial review, arguing that a Wisconsin refusal to a warrantless blood test does not line up with Minnesota’s DWI and implied-consent laws, which only allows license revocation for refusing a warrant-based blood or urine test. Both the Ramsey County District Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed and rescinded the suspension.
Key legal issue: out-of-state DWI refusals and Minnesota DWI laws
Minnesota DPS can suspend a license if a driver “has committed an offense in another state that, if committed in this state, would be grounds for suspension.” Courts apply an elements-based test: they compare the elements of the out-of-state offense with the elements of the Minnesota offense to see if a conviction there would necessarily be a conviction here.
The Court of Appeals emphasized the critical question is whether the statutory elements match, not whether the facts are similar. If the Wisconsin offense can be proved without proving a Minnesota offense, then it cannot be used as a basis for suspension under Minnesota law.
Why Wisconsin refusal law doesn’t match Minnesota law
The court drew a sharp distinction between Wisconsin’s refusal law and Minnesota’s current implied-consent framework.
- In Wisconsin, under Wis. Stat. § 343.305(3)(a) and (9)(a), after an OWI arrest an officer may request a breath, blood, or urine sample, and a driver’s license can be revoked for refusing that test, without any warrant requirement.
- In Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 3(a), explicitly provides that a blood or urine test may only be obtained by search warrant or a recognized exception, and Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 4(a), authorizes revocation only if the driver refuses to comply with the execution of the search warrant.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that Minnesota’s warrant requirement is not a mere procedural or evidentiary difference; it is a necessary element of the Minnesota refusal conviction. To revoke a Minnesota license for refusing a blood or urine test, the state must prove a valid search warrant existed and that the driver refused execution of that warrant.
Because Wisconsin can revoke for refusing a warrantless blood test, the Wisconsin offense can be committed without violating Minnesota law, where warrantless blood tests are unlawful.
Result: Minnesota suspension rescinded
Applying the elements test, the Court of Appeals concluded that the Wisconsin refusal statute does not “sufficiently conform” to Minnesota’s refusal statutes under Minn. Stat. § 171.18. That means Minnesota DPS lacked statutory authority to suspend the driver’s Minnesota license based solely on the Wisconsin refusal conviction.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order rescinding the Minnesota license suspension.
Practical takeaways for Minnesota DWI and license-revocation cases
For Minnesota DWI defense attorneys and drivers, the decision carries several important implications for cross-border OWI/DWI and implied-consent practice:
- A Wisconsin refusal to a warrantless blood test cannot, standing alone, serve as a valid statutory basis for suspending a Minnesota driver’s license under Minn. Stat. § 171.18, subd. 1(a)(7).
- In license-suspension challenges, the focus should be on the elements of the foreign statute compared to Minnesota laws and statutes, not the underlying facts or procedures used in the other state.
- Defense attorneys should obtain and closely analyze the out-of-state OWI or test-refusal statute and identify any Minnesota-specific elements (such as the search-warrant requirement for blood and urine tests) that are missing from the foreign law.
- When those elements do not align, counsel can argue that DPS acted outside its statutory authority and thus arbitrarily, supporting rescission under Minn. Stat. § 171.19.
This opinion is labeled nonprecedential but it can still be cited as persuasive authority in future DWI, implied-consent, and license-revocation cases involving out-of-state test refusals, especially Wisconsin OWI refusals.
