Minnesota Supreme Court makes another ruling on implied consent

A couple of weeks ago we wrote about a slight change in the implied consent rule thanks to a new interpretation of the rule by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a follow-up to that post, this post will look at another decision the Minnesota Supreme Court made in relation to implied consent -- but this time, it has to do with breath tests and an individual who refuses to take one.

Implied consent compels an individual to take a breath test when they are accused of a DUI. As part of your agreement to have a driver's license, you thus "consent" to any breath test that an officer tells you to take. It's part of the privilege of driving. However, there was a significant challenge to this view of implied consent here in Minnesota. Unfortunately, it did not favor those who are accused of drunk driving.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a breath test does not constitute an unwarranted search and, thus, people do not have the right to refuse such a request by the police. This doesn't change anything, really. It's still the status quo with breath tests.

But this serves as another important reminder about how the criminal system treats DUIs. The rules are very rigid and there is very little leniency with these offenses. If you are accused of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then you need to get an attorney right away to protect your rights and help you with the case.

Source: Albert Lea Tribune, "Minnesota Supreme Court: DWI testing laws are legal," Associated Press, Feb. 12, 2015

Tags: Breath Test Refusal

Continue Reading...

Another Shot Fired Over the Constitutionality of Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal Law

Home > Fourth Amendment > Another Shot Fired Over the Constitutionality of Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal LawPosted on May 19, 2014 by Dan Koewler

Minnesota is one of very few states that make it a crime to refuse to submit to a DWI test - the vast majority of states simply impose a longer license revocation against drivers who refuse. Minnesota's rare and troubling practice - making refusal to submit to a warrantless search an independent crime - appears to be unconstitutional. That appearance is causing a major conflict between defense attorneys and prosecutors, between prosecutors and cops . . . and also between Minnesota judges and other Minnesota judges.

Is it constitutional to put someone in jail for refusing to submit to a warrantless search and seizure? This is the question that has plagued Minnesota courts for over a decade, and it is a question that is quickly coming to a head. The Minnesota Supreme Court is in a position to answer that question once and for all later this year.

But in the meantime, Minnesota's DWI law is in a state of pure turmoil. In the past year, many district court judges around the state have concluded that the crime of test refusal is unconstitutional. After judges started declaring the law unconstitutional, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stepped in and in the case of State v. Bernard, crafted a brand-new doctrine that appeared to make the crime of test refusal legal. This Bernard decision was famously ignored by at least one judge who was completely unpersuaded by the newly crafted "inevitable warrant" doctrine.

Today, the Court of Appeals issued another decision finding the test refusal law constitutional, in the unpublished case of State v. Mawolo. And while it was completely expected for the Court of Appeals to follow the logic of the recently issued Bernard case, what was completely unexpected was to see another judge step up and proclaim, in effect, "we are getting this wrong, and we need to fix it before it's too late."

That is a paraphrase from the dissent in the Mawolo case, where one member of the three judge panel made it clear that "the analysis in Bernard" was "flawed" because it "creates an exception that renders the Fourth Amendment meaningless . . ." I highly suggest reading the whole dissent - it is both scholarly and very much to-the-point.

This likely will not be the last judge to openly defy the holding in the Bernard decision, and with every new voice in opposition, the constitutional crises in Minnesota deepens.

Continue Reading...

Another Misguided DUI Driver Makes a Failed Attempt to Bribe a Cop

By guest-writer

Just one week after one drunk driver made headlines for trying to bribe his way out of a DUI ticket, another intoxicated driver made an unsuccessful attempt to purchase a “get out of jail free” card.

Ashley Anderson, a 21-year-old resident of Orlando, Florida, was pulled over by police for driving while intoxicated at about 3:00 a.m. Thursday morning, according to a report from the Orlando Sentinel.

Anderson was initially pulled over for traveling 12 miles per hour about the speed limit. And sources say that she could have simply been charged with a misdemeanor if she had handled the arrest in a responsible fashion. Anderson, however, did not handle the arrest in a wise manner.

After police pulled her over, she refused to leave the car, forcing the officer to ask her multiple times to leave her vehicle.

When she kept refusing to leave her 2008 Nissan Altima, the arresting officer reached for her ignition, grabbed the keys, opened her door, and pulled her out by her left arm. The officer later stated in his report that he feared that Anderson would try to flee the scene.

When he pulled Anderson from the car, the state trooper reported that he smelled an “obvious odor” of alcohol on her breath, and he also claims that she stumbled on the ground when she left the car and had difficulty walking to the police cruiser.

A quick search of the Altima after the arrest revealed a nearly empty bottle of tequila in Anderson’s car. Carrying an open bottle of liquor in a car is illegal in almost every state.

But despite her arrest, and the discovery of the tequila in her car, Anderson was still only facing a misdemeanor DUI charge. That is, until she opened her mouth.

Sources say that when the trooper put Anderson in the back of his car, she made several attempts to offer him $3,000 in exchange for letting her go. According to the police report, she told the officer, “[w]hatever I owe you, I can just pay you in cash.”

In an effort to convince the officer, Anderson claimed that she had escaped a previous DUI charge by giving the officer $2,000, although there is no way to confirm this story.

Needless to say, the officer in this case declined her offer, and prosecutors will now level an extra charge against Anderson for attempting to bribe a law enforcement officer, which is a felony in Florida.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Another Reason to Fight Your DUI: Increased Car Insurance

Increased insurance rates can cost you thousands over time.

There are many reasons why you should fight your DUI charges. A professional DUI attorney can guide you and help you calculate the penalties involved.  One of the long-term costs associated with a DUI conviction are increased auto insurance premiums.

Especially for those who do not have a perfect driving record, a DUI can really make their rates sky-rocket.  In some cases, people convicted of DUI have not been able to find coverage for an extended period of time.  Since it is illegal to drive without insurance, this serves as an additional de facto license suspension.

The best-case scenario (which isn’t very good at all) is that you get to keep your insurance but have to pay much, much more.  Over time this adds up and could end up costing you tens of thousands of dollars.

If you are charged with a DUI in PA call now to get the facts so you can make the right decision.  Call 1-866-MCSHANE to learn more about how a DUI can affect your future.

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Another Roadblock case

Posted On: February 19, 2010 by Bruce M. Robinson

I recently tried another DUI Roadblock case in Howard County District Court. Yes, another roadblock case, I have written extensively regarding the legality of roadblocks and the DUI Defendant's responsibility in Maryland. For those who are interested, the seminal case is Little v. State which spells out the Government's obligations to you (the people of Maryland) and your legal rights under this evasive big brother type of traffic stop scenario in which the Government has placed their stamp of approval.

It is an "evasive big brother" type of traffic stop because the police are stopping your car with no probable cause and with no "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the driver has committed any crime or traffic infringement whatsoever (this is required by case law to stop a vehicle). The people of this country are protected (used to be protected) against stops like this by the U.S. Constitution. However, the Government has saw fit to override your Constitutional Protections in light of the nefarious drunk drivers and boisterous arguments advanced by MADD. Drunk driving is indeed dangerous and stupid, it hurts people and cannot be tolerated in any form; however, the way to go about the problem is not to trample the Constitution and stop every car for an "inspection" like Nazi Germany, the way to handle the problem is through highway supervision like it is normally done, where there does exist reasonable suspicion protections to pull drivers over when they are weaving, speeding or exhibit some other transgression on the roadway.

In the DUI Roadblock case, drivers do have certain important rights which I will reiterate here. When those rights are violated by the police, as happened in my recent DUI/DWI case in Howard County, the Court will throw out illegally obtained evidence and you can win your case, even if you blew an illegal breath alcohol (BAC) number.

At a roadblock, there MUST be physical signs leading up the roadblock to advise drivers what is going on down the road, you have the absolute right to make a LEGAL turn and go the other way and not be molested by the cops. A legal turn is one that does not violate any laws, such as in illegal U-turn. If you do make an illegal turn, they will of course stop you at that point.

If you do not turn away, you have the legal right NOT to roll down your window when directed to do so by the authorities. They can speak through the window, as you can and if they don't notice any other documentable reasonable suspicion, then asking you to pull over will not stand in court. To that end, you do not need to even speak with them at all when they try to engage you to do so, they will note your "slurred" speech when you do speak and use that against you as a basis for the stop. That's not to say that you will have slurred speech (and if you do, you shouldn't be driving) but they will note it anyway.

Finally, there will be a stop sign placed at the check point which you must legally stop at, but after stopping, you are actually free to carry on about your business, ie. no eye contact, no talking to them . They will most definitely follow you out of the checkpoint as you have not succumbed to their authority in an attempt to identify poor driving, but assuming that you have not been drinking, you should not exhibit any poor driving, speeding etc. If they do "order" you to pull over when you refuse to speak with them, you must follow their orders, or you will get in breach for failure to follow their order, but they will have not legal basis for the stop and their case will be very weak or non-existent in Court. As usual, you are under NO obligation to do any field sobriety testing and you should not. Nor should you speak to any police following arrest without first speaking to counsel.

Welcome to America....

View the original article here

Continue Reading...

Another DUI with Baby on Board and A Man Faces 3 DUI Charges in One Night

This week’s DUI stories feature a poor parenting decision, and an active night for a man charged with 3 DUIs in a single evening of driving.

It is all too common in the world of DUI news to hear about a parent’s use of poor judgment. Not only do they allegedly drive drunk, but they do so with a child in the car with them.
In Fort Myers, Florida, Brittney Locke is charged with DUI and other crimes, after police say she was stopped on the interstate while driving under the influence, according to ABC 7.
According to police, Locke was stopped after witnesses called police, having witnessed an accident on the highway. The driver left the scene, witnesses said, and police found Locke parked along the side of the road near an exit, with metal sheared off the side of the car.
She also had an infant in the car with her, in a car seat.
Police noted that she appeared to have trouble keeping her eyes open, and said she didn’t know what she’d hit to cause the damage to her car. She failed a field sobriety test.
She claimed to be on the way to see the child’s father, to get money from him. She also told police she was exhausted, and that she had to be up early to visit an area methadone clinic as a part of addiction treatment.
Police allegedly found a Xanex tablet in the car, a prescription bottle of ibuprofen and a plastic straw that, according to ABC, “appeared to be coated with drug residue.”
A relative took control of the child. Locke is charged with DUI, DUI property damage for the guard rail she allegedly hit, child cruelty, drug possession and drug equipment possession.
According to KGMI in Whatcom County, Washington, a man is facing 3 DUI charges after a single night of activity.

Tommy Ryser allegedly wrecked his pickup truck on the road, where police found it at around 8 p.m. on a Monday night. Then, police received a call that another accident had been reported.
It was a red VW Golf that had crashed into a guardrail.
Who pulled up to that accident site but Ryser, driving a tow truck. He had a cut on his face, according to police, and was found to be intoxicated.
According to KGMI, Ryser was arrested for and charged with crashing both disabled vehicles, and with driving drunk to the crash sites, in order to tow them back home.

Continue Reading...