Make Payment
Call Today
(952) 913-1421
Call Today
(952) 913-1421

Minnesota judges continue to rule against implied consent law

We have discussed the issue of warrants in drunk driving investigations—an issue that was highlighted recently when the United States Supreme Court ruled that in a routine DWI investigation law enforcement acted improperly in seeking a blood sample without a warrant. The high court ruled the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated.

Prosecutors across the country began arguing in the wake of the McNeely decision finding the warrantless blood draw that the case only included blood tests. But judges in Minnesota have been giving some mixed rulings in other types of DWI investigations.

The St. Cloud Times recently reported that four Stearns County judges have found Minnesota’s implied Consent law is unconstitutional. Two others reportedly have disagreed in specific cases, according to the Times. An Anoka County judge ruled that an implied breath test after a traffic stop for a malfunctioning tail light was unconstitutional because it was conducted without a warrant.

Followers of this blog may not be surprised to hear that a growing number of Minnesota judges are applying U.S. Supreme Court precedent to Minnesota’s implied consent laws. Last month we discussed the issue as judges in Minnesota and Arizona began addressing the issue anew after the nation’s highest court issued its ruling. But, with a smattering of rulings coming out with a different result, the issue may be headed for a criminal appellate ruling.

A person accused of a crime has the right to defend against the charges in court. Many Minnesotans understand the concept, but it is important to note that a person convicted of a crime, including DWI, continue to have rights in court. A person can appeal the conviction, but timing is important.

Anyone who feels that the trial court process resulted in a wrongful DWI conviction can consult with legal counsel knowledgeable in criminal appeals to learn what appellate defenses may be available in a specific set of circumstances.

Source: The St. Cloud Times, “DWI case could mean changes for law enforcement,” Davis Unze, June 29, 2013

Max Keller image
Attorney Max Keller
Max Keller

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.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
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

Person using smartphone with blurred police lights background. charged with a drug crime based on text messages

Can You Be Charged With a Drug Crime Based on Text Messages Alone?

You can be charged with a drug crime based on text messages alone in Minnesota, especially when the messages show intent to purchase, sell, distribute, or traffic drugs. Prosecutors often use text messages to demonstrate intent to commit a drug crime, show a history of drug activity, link you to a specific phone, and corroborate physical evidence. Text messages often strengthen the probable cause required for the police to arrest and charge you. They are, however, not sufficient for a conviction without compelling supporting physical evidence.
Handcuffed man in beanie looking distressed during interrogation. police lie to you during an interrogation

Can the Police Lie to You During an Interrogation in Minnesota?

Criminal defendants who interact with police officers for the first time are often left wondering, “Can the police lie to you during an interrogation?” Police officers can lie to you during an interrogation. In fact, deception is a lawful and fully permitted police technique provided the officers do not use it to force a confession. Police often claim possession of non-existent evidence or witnesses to trick you into disclosing information that can aid their investigation.