When authorities have reason to believe that a drunken driver has caused a serious or fatal accident they have a right to draw the driver's blood to test its alcohol content without their consent and without a search warrant, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling was greeted with relief by law enforcers.

The high court reversed a ruling by a Dakota County district judge in the case of Janet Sue Shriner, 48, of Burnsville.

Charges of drunken driving and criminal vehicular homicide were dismissed against Shriner involving a 2006 accident in Burnsville because the lower court ruled that police should have at least tried to obtain a warrant before taking her blood without her consent.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court said that the "rapid, natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood creates ... a circumstance [requiring immediate attention] that will justify police taking a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw from a defendant" provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed criminal vehicular homicide or operation.

The case against Shriner has been on hold pending the Supreme Court ruling, but will now move forward.

"This decision in the Shriner case is very much appreciated," Dakota County Attorney Jim Backstrom said. "It's very positive news for law enforcement across our state."

State Patrol Maj. Mike Asleson, who was messaging all patrol staff about the ruling Friday afternoon, said it "will keep us from having to go through what we sort of felt were unnecessary hoops that just delayed the inevitable, which was getting the blood draw from the driver.

"We're grateful to the court for their ruling," Asleson said.