Nyflot v. Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety

Background

Janice Nyflot was arrested late at night for suspected drunk driving. Police told her state law required a chemical test and warned that refusing it could lead to a one-year driver’s license revocation and could be used against her at trial. She asked to speak with a lawyer before deciding but was initially denied. After she twice refused, officers said she had effectively refused the test, let her call counsel, and then treated her later willingness to test as too late. The state revoked her license for one year. Lower courts split: a trial court and the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the revocation, while the state Court of Appeals had found a limited right to counsel under state law.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the constitutional right to have a lawyer applies at the stage when a driver decides whether to submit to a chemical test. The Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the right to counsel does not attach before formal criminal proceedings begin and that the protections recognizing lawyer access in some interrogation settings do not automatically apply to the narrow decision about testing. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Nyflot’s appeal as presenting no substantial federal question, so it did not rule on the constitutional issue on the merits.

Real world impact

Because the Court dismissed the case, Minnesota’s revocation stands and the specific constitutional question remains unresolved nationally. Drivers in similar situations may still face license revocations and mixed outcomes in state courts. The dismissal leaves open whether other courts might require access to counsel before testing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented and would have noted probable jurisdiction to decide the constitutional claim, highlighting the split among lower courts.