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 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.