How have courts dealt with the issue of impaired consent in the context of a license suspension?

In Stiles v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn.App.1985) 369 N.W.2d 347, the driver suffered injuries in a motorcycle accident, and the officer read the required admonishment while the driver was undergoing medical treatment. The Minnesota court held license suspension was improper, as the officer had not made a good faith effort to determine that the [235 Cal.App.3d 763] driver was attentive, distinguishing a prior case. (Ibid.) The court noted that new legislation in Minnesota, providing that a person "who is unconscious or who is otherwise in a condition rendering the person incapable of refusal is deemed not to have withdrawn the consent," "addresses the concerns now before this court." (369 N.W.2d at p. 353.)

However, the new Minnesota statute did not address all of the issues in this area. In Douglas v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn.App.1986) 385 N.W.2d 850, the court recognized "that ultimately the decision to invoke or not to invoke the provisions of [the "incapable of refusal" statute] must be made by a peace officer upon consideration of subjective criteria and often under conditions of rapidly changing circumstances. Those subjective decisions, made in good faith, are often scrutinized in subsequent legal proceedings. It is impossible to fashion infallible guidelines. However, when, as here, the driver is receiving a multitude of emergency room treatment procedures necessitated by extensive and traumatic injury, the officer must seriously consider the applicability of [the statute] to the circumstances at hand.3 Failure to do so may deny the Commissioner the ability to institute revocation procedures." (385 N.W.2d at pp. 853-854.) Footnote three states "If the officer is concerned about whether a blood test will further endanger an injured driver's physical condition, the officer should seek the opinion of the attending physician,

Page 122