![\"Jeff](\"\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/alumni\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2015\/12\/DSC02289-300x200.jpg\")
Jeff Sheridan ’87 is “elated” that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided take on a case he’s litigated involving warrantless DWI tests.<\/p><\/div>\n
Sheridan\u2019s stand is that warrantless tests violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s nothing special about DWI cases that exempt them from the rules that apply to every other kind of criminal investigation,\u201d Sheridan said.<\/p>\n
The incident that gained the Supreme Court\u2019s attention occurred in 2012. That\u2019s when Sheridan\u2019s client, William Bernard, refused a sobriety test. He was arrested and charged with a felony for refusing the test.<\/p>\n
A district court threw out the case, agreeing with Sheridan\u2019s argument that officers needed a warrant to perform a breath test. Minnesota\u2019s Court of Appeals overturned that decision in April 2015, upholding the state law that criminalizes refusal of such a test.<\/p>\n
Now that it\u2019s been accepted by the Supreme Court, Sheridan thinks his case is on solid ground.<\/p>\n
He points to a similar 2013 case in which the Supreme Court ruled police officers in Missouri violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a man suspected of driving drunk when they forced him to give a blood sample.<\/p>\n
Law enforcement officials and anti-drunk driving advocates maintain police need to be able to administer sobriety tests without a warrant.<\/p>\n
In 2013, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MADD, defended the warrantless tests. The group filed an amicus brief in the Missouri case, saying that in the time it takes to obtain a search warrant, a drunk driver\u2019s body can dissipate alcohol, giving a defense lawyer leverage to obtain an acquittal. MADD contends the tests are key to reducing drunk driving accidents, which in 2013 killed more than 10,000 Americans and injured 290,000.<\/p>\n
It can take police between 15 minutes and two hours to get a warrant from a judge in DWI cases. But, Sheridan claims, if state governments developed new electronic systems, police could obtain a warrant almost instantly.<\/p>\n
Sheridan\u2019s passion for criminal defense began as a law student at Hamline. He had planned to become a prosecuting attorney and judge, but a work-study job changed his course of study.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce I spent two semesters in the Federal Public Defender\u2019s Office, I never thought about being a prosecutor or a judge again,\u201d Sheridan said. \u201cI love doing criminal defense work.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sheridan estimates that 90 percent of the clients at his Eagan-based firm, Sheridan & Dulas, are DWI defense cases.<\/p>\n
Mitchell Hamline law professor Ed Butterfoss calls Sheridan\u2019s challenges to Minnesota\u2019s drunken driving laws \u201ctenacious\u201d and said he\u2019s earned the respect of people on both sides of the issue.<\/p>\n
Butterfoss believes the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in this case will be of enormous importance. Whether or not justices agree with Sheridan\u2019s position, it could potentially affect drunk driving laws in a number of states.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one likes drunk drivers,\u201d Butterfoss said. \u201cIt is the classic case of an attorney representing an unpopular client in order to protect the constitutional rights of everyone. In this case, the right to be free from unreasonable searches.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sheridan said he\u2019s \u201celated\u201d that the Supreme Court will hear his case, but it\u2019s not clear whether he\u2019ll actually argue it himself. He\u2019s currently working with Yale University\u2019s Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic and the Washington, D.C., law firm Mayer Brown on the case.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are lots of people involved in this who can argue it,\u201d Sheridan said. \u201cI\u2019m perfectly happy to let somebody else do it, so long as we get this issue resolved here in Minnesota.\u201d<\/p>\n
Supreme Court oral arguments in the case have yet to be scheduled. But Sheridan expects the case to make it on the court\u2019s calendar by late March or early April.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take up three cases on warrantless drunk driving tests, one of which has been litigated by a Mitchell Hamline alum. \u201cThis is the third time I\u2019ve asked the United States Supreme Court to take a look at this,\u201d Jeff Sheridan \u201887 said. \u201cAnd they finally said … <\/p>\n