Trial court: Necessity defense unavailable in civil license revocation challenge

A Monticello woman recently requested a civil implied consent hearing to challenge her license revocation after being arrested for driving while impaired. The administrative and civil license revocation issues operate separately from the criminal case following a Minnesota DWI arrest. The Monticello woman sought to have her license reinstated, arguing before the court that she was behind the wheel at the time of her DWI arrest to escape domestic violence.

The woman says that she had been drinking with her husband at a bar in Mora. She says that some kind of domestic dispute erupted and after she had left the tavern, she found herself in her car with her husband on the hood of the vehicle. She says that he was striking the windshield with his fists, sending spider cracks through the safety glass. The woman says that she drove the car to escape the domestic conflict, returning to the safety of the tavern where she had been earlier in the evening.

She says that necessity dictated that she avoid the domestic violence. But the Kanabec County judge denied the necessity defense in the civil implied consent proceeding. The judge ruled that “the episode of domestic violence here is outweighed by the potential hazards [the woman] created for the public when she drove her vehicle while intoxicated.”

Generally, under Minnesota law, the necessity defense allows a person to exercise judgment in choosing between two harms. The necessity defense is generally a legally cognizable defense for a person charged with a crime and is available “if the harm that would have resulted from compliance with the law would have significantly exceeded the harm actually resulting from the defendant’s breach of the law.”

The judge ruled that the necessity defense is not available in civil implied consent license revocation proceedings. The state had argued allowing a driver to escape civil liability in an implied consent proceeding would serve no public policy.

The woman argued that she should not be sanctioned in civil court for seeking safety from an alleged domestic abuse situation. She says that she was in a remote area, and that her husband had taken her cellphone. She says that she could not call for help and had no choice but to drive to safety.

The woman’s husband had reportedly been arrested on the same night as her DWI arrest. He was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence and disorderly conduct, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune, “Driving drunk to escape attack will cost driver license, Abby Simons, July 17, 2012

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.