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

DWI Urine Tests Still Very Open to Challenge and Unreliable

Recently, this blog reported on the Minnesota Supreme Court’s opinion issued earlier this week on February 8, 2011 regarding the question of whether DWI urine tests are reliable.  Specifically, the court did NOT decide the question of whether DWI urine tests are reliable, but instead chose to sidestep the issue on procedural grounds. The high Court refused to decide whether urine tests require a so-called Frye-Mack Hearing on their reliability.

The Supreme Court held that because the trial attorney had limited his arguments to the lack of correlation between urine alcohol concentration (UAC) and blood alcohol concentration (BAC), that it would not address the additional issues of foundational reliability for Minnesota DWI urine tests and the fact that Urine Testing has never been subject to a Frye-Mack ReliabilityHhearing in Minnesota to prove that it is reliable in DWI cases, AS WELL AS the argument that Minnesota uses “first-void” testing which has been rejected for DWI cases by almost every other state.

What does this all mean for YOUR Urine DWI case in Minnesota?  Many issues are still alive and will be challenged by our firm if you retain us to challenge your Urine DWI case.  For instance, First, the supreme court has not decided whether Urine testing for DWI’s in Minnesota needs to be subject to a Reliaiblity Hearing since one has never been held.  Second, are Urine Tests inherently unreliable because of Minnesota’s first-void method of testing, which has been rejected by over 40 states and SOFT, the National Society of Forensic Testing.  Third, are Minnesota’s Urine Tests for DWI cases unreliable and illegal because the BCA has failed to honor the Legislature’s intent when the BCA promulgated a rule allowing first-void testing to be used, which produces an unreliable test result with no correlation to BAC or actual impairment.

Keller Criminal Defense Attorneys has defended many drivers accused of a DWI based on a Urine Test, and will raise all the above, and many more, to help you defend your rights and Stay out of Jail.  Call (952) 913-1421 today to get the Defense you Deserve!

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.