Prosecutors insist on trying man on 26-year-old charge

People in Minneapolis have certainly heard of cold cases, but many likely assume that cold cases involve murder, rape or some kind of other crime that has a victim and carries a certain degree of grief. Something like driving under the influence of alcohol, especially if it did not include a car accident or injuries, seems somewhat silly to prosecute years after it allegedly happened.

In addition, pursuing a charge of drunk driving well after it supposedly happened is unfair to the defendant. While police reports with results of field sobriety tests and breath or blood tests will still be accessible 10, 20 or 30 years later, witnesses for the defense that could contradict a police report may not remember important details or there may be no way of contacting anyone who knew anything about the incident after a while. Regardless, a police report that was written at the time of the incident may carry more weight than recollected witness testimony anyways.

This is the situation that is facing one man who is being prosecuted on a nearly-26-year charge of drunk driving. When he was 21 years old, in 1987, the young man was found stumbling in a parking lot by police who were reporting to the scene of an accident. The responding officer wrote that he found the young man in an apartment building’s parking complex, smelling of alcohol and with slurred speech. What the officer did not find, however, was the young man driving, nor was he even in a vehicle. The officer assumed, however, that he had been driving because was in a parking lot. When tested, the reports claim he was above the legal limit for alcohol.

To this day, the now-46 year old insists he had not been driving and had not been intoxicated.

What makes this case particularly interesting, however, is that since the time he was originally charged with drunk driving, the man believed his charges had been dropped and he moved abroad. Since his move, he has returned to the United States and has even renewed his license several times, never once having a problem until recently. Now, since the arrest warrant and drunk driving charge have come to light, the prosecutor insists on following through on the charges.

Source: South Florida Sun Sentinel, “Letter from defendant revives 1987 DUI case in Broward,” Rafael Olmeda, March 18, 2013

Our law firm has worked with many people who have been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. To find out more about our work and seriousness of these crimes, please visit our website.

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.