Copyright Articles 1996 - 2013 - All Rights Reserved

Minnesota and Wisconsin criminal law, criminal defense, Divorce, custody, Lawyers

New Challenges to DWI Laws 2008 
 


Search
Go


 General Info



About this Site


Minnesota Lawyers


Wisconsin Lawyers


Link Partners


 ASK-A-LAWYER



Ask-A-Lawyer: Questions


Legal Bulletin Boards


 BANKRUPTCY



Minnesota Bankruptcy


 BUSINESS



Business & Corporate Law


Minnesota Franchise Law


Freedom of Information Act


 CONSTRUCTION



Construction Law


 CRIMINAL DEFENSE



Criminal Defense Center


DWI Center


 DEBT COLLECTION



Debt Collection


 DIVORCE



MN & WI Family Law & Divorce


Divorce Any State


Collaborative Law


 EMPLOYMENT LAW



Employment Law


 ESTATE PLANNING



Estate Planning Center


 IMMIGRATION



U.S. Immigration Center


Canadian Immigration Center


What Type of Visa Do I Need?


 JUVENILE LAW



Minnesota Juvenile Justice Center


 PERSONAL INJURY



Personal Injury


Minnesota Wrongful Death


Minnesota Medical Malpractice


 REAL ESTATE - PROPERTY



Minnesota Real Estate


 SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY



Social Security Disability


 WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION



Worker's Compensation Center

Minnesota Lawyers  
Ofc. 612.240.8005  
Suite 700  
5775 Wayzata Boulevard  
St. Louis Park, MN 55416  

maury@beaulier.com  


Sitemap





Google

Wisconsin and Minnesota lawyers challenging alcohol breath tests for DWI or OWI

Are Minnesota's DWI Laws constitutional in 2008?
Drunk Driving, OWI, DWI, DUI


It would seem that the fabric of Minnesota's DWI laws is slowly unraveling as new challenges are made to the laws and how they comply with constitutional protections.  As a result, persons charged with DWI offenses in Minnesota have a number of viable defenses at their disposal and should ALWAYS consult with an attorney before entering any plea.

One of the major issues presently being litigated is whether Minnesota's laws unconstitutionally coerce persons arrested to provide breath, blood or urine samples for alcohol testing.  As many Minnesotans are aware, when a person is arrested for suspicion of drunk driving, they are read an implied consent advisory which is a short statement of their rights.  That advisory informs the driver that they have a right  to consult a lawyer before submitting to any testing.  However, if they refuse to submit to breath, blood or urine testing, they can be charged with a criminal offense.  In fact, the criminal offense charged, which is a refusal to test, often has more severe consequences than being charged with a DWI.   Specifically, a refusal may turn a misdemeanor DWI into a gross misdemeanor refusal. The former carries with it up to 90 days in jail and a $1000 fine, where the latter may be punished by up to 1 year in jail and a $3000 fine.  Moreover, the license revocation for most first offense DWI's  is generally 30 to 90 days.  For a refusal, that revocation period is one year.   

This is critical because challenges to the law are based upon the State and Federal constitutional protections to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  The United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.”  U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Minnesota constitution contains a parallel provision.  Minn. Const. art. I, § 10.  Minnesota case law has consistently stated that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable.  State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221-22 (Minn. 1992). 

When you consider that a breath, blood or urine  test is, indeed, a search for inculpatory evidence, then constitutional protections must be applied.  Both federal law and State law  have historically  recognized that seeking a sample of breath, blood or urine is, in fact a search as the term is defined in constitutional law.  this was established in Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n., 489 U.S. 602 (1989). and, in Minnesota in State v. Shriner, 739 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. App. Oct. 2, 2007).

The end result is that an Officer seeking to test a driver's blood, urine or breath to determine the presence of alcohol must either have a warrant to search and seize that sample or have some valid exception to the warrant requirement.  State prosecutors would argue that there is a viable exception for exigency.  Exigency requires that there is some immediate need to seize the evidence or it will be gone. In other words, some emergency. 

The problem with that argument is that generally, there is plenty of time for an officer to seek and acquire a warrant after a person is arrested for a DWI.  Police have up to two hours after the driving conduct to acquire a sample that would be admissible in court as evidence of a DWI and their are always Judge on call for that precise purpose.   When determining whether the situation presented exigent circumstances, Minnesota courts examine the totality of the circumstances.  State v. Lohnes, 344 N.W.2d 605, 611 (Minn. 1984).

Minnesota courts have noted that factors to consider when determining whether exigent circumstances are present for an officer to search include: (1) the time that has passed while the accused is transported to the hospital, (2) the need for the officer to investigate the scene, (3) the evanescent nature of alcohol in the blood, (4) the availability of the accused in the hospital, and (5) the time necessary to obtain a warrant, including a telephonic warrant.  See, e.g., State v. Oevering, 268 N.W.2d 68, 74 (Minn. 1978); State v. Shriner, 739 N.W.2d 432, 436 (Minn. App. 2007), review granted (Dec. 11, 2007). 

 The fact that seeking a warrant is inconvenient, should not be a basis to ignore constitutional protections.   Of course, it would be exceedingly rare for a police officer to force a driver to provide a breath, blood or urine sample and, presently, there is no need since the driver may be charged with  (arguably) a greater offense should they refuse to provide a sample for testing.  This is whether Minnesota's Implied Consent statute runs afoul of constitutional protections.

A second exception to the warrant requirement is consent.  Prosecutors will argue that the when a driver is read the implied consent advisory and consents to a breath, blood or urine test, they fall with in an exception to the warrant requirement.  This is an established exception to the warrant requirement under State v. Hanley , 363 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Minn. 1985). However, to be valid (and thus fall within the exception), such consent must be “freely and voluntarily” given as indicated  in State v. George , 557 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Minn. 1997).  The U.S. Supreme Court said it best in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2045, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), stating that “an officer has a right to ask to search[,]¼an individual has a right to say no.” Id. 

So, is it really freely given consent when a police officer tells a driver that they: (1) may choose to submit to breath, blood or urine testing BUT, (2) if they do not, they will be charged with a crime?  

The state of Minnesota has begun to review this issue and it appears presently that the answer may be "no."   In State v. Netland, 742 N.W.2d 207, 214 (Minn. App. 2007) pet. for rev. granted (Feb 27, 2008), the court of appeals held that “because an individual does not have the right to say no to a chemical test, and indeed, is subject to criminal penalties for doing so, the ‘consent’ implied by law is insufficiently voluntary for Fourth Amendment purposes.”  Unfortunately, the court backtracked a little bit in 2008 when in State v. Pernell, 2008 WL 123944 (Minn. App. 2008) pet. for rev. granted (March 26, 2008), it decided  that the “consent” under the Implied Consent statute is voluntary. Nonetheless, this remains a viable defense since the Supreme Court of Minnesota promptly accepted review both cases.   Presently oral arguments are schedule for September.

Some state court Judges are already acting in reliance on Netland and ruling in favor of DWI defendants on a constitutional basis by suppressing breath, blood and urine tests in DWI proceedings as evidence that was seized in an unconstitutional fashion.

 


To contact us regarding your DWI defense issues  call 612-240.8005 or ASK-A-LAWYER Online

Call (612) 240.8005

Criminal Defense Center
Main Page

Bulletin Board
Ask a question or
review postings on our
Family Law Bulletin Board

Ask-A-Lawyer
Ask-A-Lawyer your legal questions


ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

How breathalyzers work.
An explanation of the theory and operation of breath testing devices.

Alcohol Intoxication Testing.
Overview of current state of "scientific" testing

Introduction to Forensic Toxicology.
An article exploring the science of analyzing poisons including blood-alcohol analysis.

The Response of the Intoxilyzer 5000 to five interfering substances.
Certain substances can affect the accuracy of a breath test.

Mouth Alcohol and Intoxylizer Inaccuracy
Breath Testing and contaminated results.

Breath Testing Machines.
Common methods of breath analysis..

BOOKS

Challenging the Breath Test at Trial

4 Ways to Get a New Drivers License

Drunk driving defense : how to beat the Rap.

Drunk Driving : A Survival Guide for Motorists

Drunk driving laws : rules of the road...






About this Site  |  Minnesota Lawyers  |  Wisconsin Lawyers  |  Link Partners  |  Ask-A-Lawyer: Questions  |  Legal Bulletin Boards  |  Minnesota Bankruptcy  |  Business & Corporate Law  |  Minnesota Franchise Law  |  Freedom of Information Act  |  Construction Law  |  Criminal Defense Center  |  DWI Center  |  Debt Collection  |  MN & WI Family Law & Divorce  |  Divorce Any State  |  Collaborative Law  |  Employment Law  |  Estate Planning Center  |  U.S. Immigration Center  |  Canadian Immigration Center  |  What Type of Visa Do I Need?  |  Minnesota Juvenile Justice Center  |  Personal Injury  |  Minnesota Wrongful Death  |  Minnesota Medical Malpractice  |  Minnesota Real Estate  |  Social Security Disability  |  Worker's Compensation Center

LEGAL SOLUTIONS FOR BUSINESS AND FAMILY

Any information contained on this site is general in nature. You should not rely on any articles, postings or other information on these pages as legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. If you are in need of legal advice concerning a particular matter, you are encouraged to contact an attorney in your state.

Any Lawyers referred have indicated the geographic area and the areas of law in which they will accept referrals. This site makes no investigation into the referral attorney's particular abilities to handle the Client's legal matter. Before employing the attorney, the Client should interview the attorney and make whatever investigation the Client feels is appropriate into the attorney's qualifications to handle the Client's legal matter.

Minnesota Lawyers


Sign In

 Sign In