Blog
Earlier this week, we opened a discussion of a recent recommendation from the national Transportation Safety Board suggesting that states lower the driving while impaired threshold from 0.08 percent to 0.05 percent blood alcohol concentration.
When someone is charged with a crime in St. Paul, there must be sufficient evidence that supports the charge. While the evidentiary requirement is far lower than what is needed to convict someone, a grand jury cannot indict someone on a crime unless there is some form of credible evidence. If someone is charged with no evidence, however, a judge can dismiss the charges for lack of evidence, which is what a judge did after actor Jeffrey Wright’s breath test indicated he had no alcohol in his system following an arrest for drunk driving.
It’s the time of year when the Supreme Court of the United States issues its decisions and nearly every year a few of them have some serious ramifications on criminal defense. Anyone in Minneapolis who read about the ruling in Salinas v. Texas knows that this will have a negative effect on criminal law and defendants’ rights.
A 20-year-old man will likely spend the remainder of his life in prison after a Twin Cities jury convicted him of murder Thursday, despite his protests that police and prosecutors had the wrong man.
Earlier this month the National Transportation Safety Board made a recommendation that states should lower the legal limit to drive to 0.05 percent blood alcohol concentration. Readers of this blog may understand that Minnesota law currently sets the legal limit at 0.08 percent–that is the point at which the law presumes impairment of any driver, regardless of other factors. Generally, Minnesota’s DWI laws allow authorities to seek DWI charges based upon alleged evidence of impairment without the alcohol test, but many cases involve multiple charges as prosecutors hope to cover their bases.
Alleged aggravating factors associated with a drunk driving arrest can increase the level of charge that authorities may seek under Minnesota law. Generally, people may expect that a prior, or several prior, DWI convictions within the 10-years preceding a new DWI arrest will enhance the new charge to a higher level of offense. But, other aggravating factors may be alleged in enhance a charge–even for a first time offender.
Authorities in Hennepin County reportedly obtained a warrant to draw blood in an alleged drunk driving investigation on May 1. Authorities claim that a St. Cloud, Minnesota man led an off-duty Plymouth police officer on a chase that began in Maple Grove near Interstate 94 and Weaver Lake Road. Hennepin County deputies and officers from the Rogers Police Department reportedly were also involved.
Max Keller of Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys recently won the first known victory on the McNeely warrantless DWI testing issue in an Order from Judge Grunke in a Stearns County DWI Implied Consent hearing challenging a Driver’s License Revocation. Two other Judges recently issues similar rulings in a Washington County DWI and a Sibley County DWI. So, as you can see, judges from all over the state are beginning to wake up and realize that the Constitutional applies to DWI defendants as well as to everyone else. Judges in Minnesota and elsewhere are concluding that warrantless DWI tests are illegal and unconstitutional.