Attorney Dan Koewler From Ramsay Law Firm Discusses the Bernard Case on WCCO Channel 4

Home > Fourth Amendment > Attorney Dan Koewler From Ramsay Law Firm Discusses the Bernard Case on WCCO Channel 4Posted on February 13, 2015 by Chuck Ramsay

In the wake of the decision in State v. Bernard (finding Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal Law constitutional if law enforcement demand a breath test), Minnesota media turned to Ramsay Law Firm for our reaction and analysis of this groundbreaking decision.

Our own Dan Koewler (author of the "friend of the court" brief submitted in the case) discussed the possible ramifications of this decision on WCCO Channel 4 news.

You can view the video here.

Continue Reading...

Dan Koewler From Ramsay Law Firm Discusses the Bernard Case on WCCO Channel 4

Home > Fourth Amendment > Dan Koewler From Ramsay Law Firm Discusses the Bernard Case on WCCO Channel 4Posted on February 13, 2015 by Chuck Ramsay

In the wake of the decision in State v. Bernard (finding Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal Law Constitutional if law enforcement demand a breath test) local Minnesota media turned to Ramsay Law Firm for our opinion and analysis of this groundbreaking decision.

Our own Dan Koewler (author of the "frend of the court" brief submitted in the case) discussed the possible ramifications for this decision on WCCO Channel 4 news.

You can view the video below.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=11126066

Continue Reading...

Ramsay Law Firm's Dan Koewler Discusses DWI Test Refusal on Fox 9 News

Posted on February 13, 2015 by Chuck Ramsay
The article associated with the interview does a good job of laying out the basic facts of the Bernard case, as well as discussing the legal holding in the case. We'd suggest reading it.
This decision is notable (and surprising) as much for the spirited dissent as for the final decision, and will have a tremendous impact on all future DWI cases. This case marks an important shift towards a new and much looser interpretation of our Constitution's Fourth Amendment, stretching an exception to the warrant requirement originally designed to protect the safety of law enforcement to cover intrusions into the human body.

As always, expect much more litigation in the aftermath of the Bernard
decision, including a high likelihood of this case (or at least the issue presented in this case) arriving on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court in the near future.

Continue Reading...