Minnesota Supreme Court Rules It’s Constitutional to Criminalize Test Refusal in DWI Cases GalleryMcNeely in Minnesota, Minnesota DWI Court Opinions, Minnesota DWI News, Minnesota DWI Take or Refuse Testing, Minnesota DWI Test Refusal, Minnesota DWI Testing Decision
In today’s surprising 5-2 decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that it’s constitutional to criminalize test refusal in a DWI case where the driver refuses to submit to a breath test. The case is State v. Bernard. You can read the court’s decision here.
For the first time in history, the court applied the “search-incident-to-arrest” exception to DWI cases, and ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant to search a person’s breath for alcohol content after a valid DWI arrest. Because a warrant is not required to search the person’s breath for alcohol content, a driver’s refusal to […]
Police in Ramsey County Are Adding License Plate Scanners to Detect Criminal Activity GalleryMinnesota Crime Statistics, Minnesota DWI News, Minnesota Implied Consent License Revocation, Minnesota Police Surveillance, Minnesota Whiskey Plates
On April 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely, holding that a nonconsensual, warrantless blood test in a DWI case violated the defendant’s right to be free from an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that a warrant was required to obtain a sample of the defendant’s blood for alcohol testing. Consequently, the blood test was excluded as evidence in the case.
McNeely is a seminal case in the area of DWI law. Prior to McNeely, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a warrant never is required to obtain a sample of a driver’s blood, breath, […]
Should You Take or Refuse the Test in a Minnesota DWI Case? GalleryMinnesota DWI Blood Testing, Minnesota DWI Take or Refuse Testing, Minnesota DWI Test Refusal, Minnesota DWI Testing Decision, Minnesota DWI Urine Testing, Minnesota Ignition Interlock, Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory, Minnesota Implied Consent License Revocation, Minnesota Right to Counsel in DWI Case
This is probably the most common question asked of a DWI lawyer. The short answer is: You should take the test with a few important caveats.
The best advice is to call a lawyer before you take the test. The police give you at least 20 minutes to reach a lawyer for advice. They provide directories and may allow you to use your cell phone to find a lawyer. Because it’s often difficult to reach a lawyer late at night, keep calling lawyers until you reach one directly. The police often will give you extra time to reach a lawyer if […]
On September 26, 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court released an important decision in the DWI vehicle forfeiture of Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet. The Court applied the plain language of the DWI forfeiture statute and held that an owner is entitled to return of the vehicle if the alleged offender attends court and is not convicted of the “designated offense” triggering the initial forfeiture.
Under the forfeiture statute, a “designated offense” is defined as First or Second Degree DWI/Test Refusal or any DWI/Test Refusal offense where the driver has a B-card restriction or is canceled inimical to public safety (IPS).
The decision […]
By 4-3 Margin, Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Intoxilyzer 5000EN Breath Test in Thousands of Pending DWI Cases
On June 27, 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision regarding the validity of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN breath machine, used in thousands of pending Minnesota DWI cases. By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court upheld the validity and reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN machine. A copy of the decision is available here.
The decision ends an approximately six-year battle regarding access to, and analysis of, the Intoxilyzer’s source code, which governs the machine’s operation. Despite finding errors in the source code, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that these errors do not affect the reliability of the test results. Thus, […]
In State v. Hawkinson, decided March 26, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the State of Minnesota violated defendant’s due process rights by destroying defendant’s blood sample before the DWI trial and after defendant’s specific demand to preserve the blood sample for trial. The court of appeals relied on the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of Brady v. Maryland, which established that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith […]
Twincities.com reports that an internal review of the Rosemount Police Department found no impropriety in its recent DWI enforcement, despite several complaints by owners of downtown drinking establishments alleging that the police were overzealously targeting its patrons. The owners complained that police officers were stopping drivers for no reason and consequently, scaring away business. One restaurant manager reported that she was stopped five times by the Rosemount Police. WCCO News even conducted its own investigation.
In response to the complaints, Rosemount’s city council ordered a review of nightly traffic stops made between December 2011 and February 2012. Lieutenant Jewel Erickson […]
The Star Tribune reports that Canada has eased its strict policy denying Americans entry into Canada if they have a single DWI conviction. In the past, Americans with a single DWI conviction often were deemed inadmissible because DWI is considered an “indictable offence” in Canada. An “indictable offence” is similar to a felony in the American system. Canada’s new policy is in response to lost tourism revenue.
The new Canadian policy effective March 1, 2012, allows certain first-time offenders a one-time exemption. Importantly, the policy doesn’t help Americans enter Canada more than once and doesn’t help those with more than one […]