-
Should You Take or Refuse the Test in a Minnesota DWI Case? GalleryShould You Take or Refuse the Test in a Minnesota DWI Case?
Minnesota 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
Should You Take or Refuse the Test in a Minnesota DWI Case?
This is probably the most common question asked of a DWI lawyer. The short answer is: Yes, 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 […]
Minnesota Supreme Court Limits DWI Vehicle Forfeiture Statute – Plain Language Prevails
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, […]
State’s Destruction of Blood Sample Prior to DWI Trial Violated Due Process
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 […]
Rosemount Police Did Not Engage in Overzealous DWI Enforcement, Despite Complaints by Bar Owners
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 […]
Canada Eases Entry Rules for First-Time DWI Offenders
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 […]
National Safety Group Seeks Ignition Interlock Devices for All First-Time DWI Offenders
USA Today reports that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) supports national legislation requiring all first-time DWI offenders to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles.
An ignition interlock device is a hand-held unit, which requires a driver to blow into the device before starting the vehicle and at random intervals while driving the vehicle. If the driver’s alcohol concentration is 0.02 or more, the vehicle will not start. In Minnesota, drivers who install an ignition interlock device have to pay approximately $100 per month for the device, plus a $100 installation fee and a $50 removal fee. […]
Minnesota DWI Arrests and Potential Immigration Consequences
Non-citizens arrested for DWI in Minnesota face potential, life-altering immigration consequences. Non-citizens should consult with a knowledgeable DWI lawyer and an immigration lawyer before resolving any DWI case, leaving the U.S., or filing any immigration documents. DWI charges certainly can affect a non-citizen’s ability to remain in or re-enter the U.S., obtain a visa or green card, or become a naturalized citizen.
For details about the immigration consequences of a non-citizen charged with DWI in Minnesota, please our page entitled Non-Citizen DWI.
Minnesota Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Validity of First-Void Urine Sampling in DWI Case
In State v. Tanksley decided February 8, 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected defendant Tanksley’s challenge to the reliability of DWI urine testing. The court held that it was proper for the trial court to reject Tanksley’s request for a Frye-Mack hearing because Tanksley’s proffered basis for the hearing was not relevant to the charged DWI offense.
Tanksley was charged with misdemeanor Fourth Degree DWI based upon a urine test with a reported alcohol concentration of 0.13. Before trial, Tanksley requested a Frye-Mack evidentiary hearing, challenging the reliability of first-void urine testing and seeking to establish that first-void urine testing does not […]