The 2012 drunk driving picture in Minnesota, at a glance

One of the most recent years for drunk driving data, in the state of Minnesota, reveals some surprising facts, and today we're going to discuss this information. First and foremost, how many drunk driving arrests do you think were made in the state of Minnesota in 2012?

The answer is 22,278 such arrests. Only 260 of these arrests involved people age 18 or younger.

But what about fatal accidents involving drunk drivers? This is always a tragic and unfortunate area. In the state of Minnesota in 2012, 114 were killed as a result of an alcohol-impaired driving accident. That means that for every 100,000 people in Minnesota in 2012, there were 2.1 fatalities tied to alcohol-impaired motor vehicle accidents.

However, there is some very good news regarding the alcohol-impaired fatality rate per 100,000 people. The change in this rate from 2002 to 2012 shows a dramatic 46.3 percent decline. Hopefully we can continue this trend by having people make smarter decisions when it comes to even considering getting behind the wheel after consuming alcohol.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to completely eliminate drunk driving from our state, or the country, or the world -- though it is an admirable goal. Even self-driving cars won't fix the drunk driving problem because there will always be potential emergency scenarios where someone has to take over the driving duties, and if they are alcohol-impaired, then this creates problems.

Ultimately, we need to continue making responsible decisions about how we consume alcohol, how much we consume, and how we will safely make it home, in light of the answers to the first two questions.

Source: Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, "State Facts: Minnesota," Accessed March 10, 2015

Continue Reading...

Medication Contraindication: Driving in Minnesota

Posted on March 17, 2015 by Chuck Ramsay

Medication Contraindication: Driving in Minnesota

Do you take prescription medication? Approximately 70% of Americans do.

If your medication is classified as Schedule I or Schedule II—Adderall, Ambien, Codeine, or Klonopin, for example—every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you are committing the crime of driving while impaired. If arrested, you will lose your driver’s license, and proving that you are taking medication as prescribed by your doctor won’t help you get it back.

For this you can thank the Minnesota Court of Appeals for its recent decision in Dornbusch v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety.

In its decision, the Dornbusch court freely acknowledged that classifying medications—because of their potential for abuse—was never intended to thwart their prescribed use by drivers. 

Remember, we’re not talking about street drugs or hardcore narcotics here. It is against the law to drive in Minnesota if any amount of certain medications people take every day—Ritalin, Xanax, Vicodin, to name just a few—is present in your body.

But the Dornbusch court nonetheless held that when any amount of a Schedule I or II medication is found in a chemical test—even when the driver was taking the medication as prescribed—a judge’s hands are tied. If the state has revoked your driver’s license for suspected DWI, a valid prescription will do nothing to help you get your driver’s license back.

Let me guess; this is the point where you, and many readers, are thinking, “Well, it’s only a crime if I get arrested while driving, and even if I get pulled over, I won’t be arrested for DWI, so I don’t need to worry.”

Think again. Law enforcement officers need only a minor traffic infraction to justify pulling you over. Once you’ve been stopped, an officer’s hunch, your bloodshot eyes, and an inability to stand perfectly still while balancing on one leg is all it takes to arrest you for DWI.

Coming up next: a recent example from the Court of Appeals of just how easy it is to find yourself under arrest for DWI.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/320063

Continue Reading...

Poll: Should Minnesota Lower the Legal Drinking Age?

In 1984 President Reagan signed the Uniform Drinking Age Act, requiring all states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 or face reductions in their federal highway funding. Since 1995, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have complied.

But now, Minnesota lawmakers are considering legislation that would roll back the state’s legal drinking age to 18. State Representative Phyllis Kahn has proposed legislation that would allow individuals over 18 to be served alcohol in bars and restaurants. The bill would still ban retail sales of alcohol for people under 21.

Kahn—whose district area includes the University of Minnesota—argues that serving alcohol to young adults in public would teach them to drink responsibly and reduce binge drinking. And she notes that the measure would be good for the economy as it would likely increase sales in bars and restaurants.

Supporters claim that many 18- to 20-year-olds already drink, especially on college campuses, and making alcohol legally available to this group could decrease the “forbidden fruit” allure of drinking.

But critics point to studies linking a lower drinking age to increased traffic crashes and to research that shows teens and young adults respond more adversely to alcohol than older adults. In addition, MADD and the National Traffic Highway Administration (NHTSA) estimate that raising the drinking age to 21 nationally has saved approximately 900 lives per year.

If the bill is approved by the Minnesota legislature it will take effect in August.

 Loading ...

Continue Reading...

Never Stop Learning: The Science of Defending DWIs in Minnesota

Posted on March 3, 2015 by Dan Koewler

Ramsay Law Firm has been at the cutting edge of DWI defense in Minnesota for over a decade, and maintaining that position as top-notch DWI defense attorneys means constantly learning and developing new skills.We recently went to trial on a 0.14 breath alcohol DWI case . . . and the verdict we got for our client was largely due to our efforts to stay educated on everything scientific about DWI testing. We'll tell you the verdict at the bottom of the post, but first, take a peek at how we got there . . .

. . . Chuck spent the first part of 2015 busily boning up on his scientific know-how. He started with the comprehensive course on gas chromatography (the process used to test blood and urine samples for drugs and alcohol) put on by the folks at Axion Laboratories in Chicago, Illinois. This was a refresher course for Chuck, and he's close to becoming the first attorney in Minnesota to obtain the highly prestigious "Lawyer-Scientist" designation from the "Chemistry and the Law Division" of the American Chemical Society (ACS), a non profit, Congressionally chartered scientific society.

Shortly after passing the course and obtaining his certificate . . . .

                   

Chuck moved on to attend the 67th Annual American Academy of Forensic Scientists Scientific Meeting. The AAFS Annual Meeting is downright scary in the amount of information presented, and Chuck took full advantage of the opportunities presented to bring himself up to speed on all the recent developments that impact the practice of DWI defense.

There is a reason why other defense attorneys call Ramsay Law Firm when they have questions regarding their DWI defense cases. And there are even better reasons why our clients can rest easier at night, knowing that we're going to stop at nothing to beat the charges against them - through legal challenges, through negotiation, through sheer willpower . . . and many times, through our ability to destroy the alleged "science" behind Minnesota's DWI breath, blood, and urine tests.

And we're happy to announce that the first thing Chuck did after returning from the AAFS Annual Scientific Meeting was obtain a Not Guilty jury verdict on all charged counts in a DWI trial, where his scientific knowledge played a huge part in his ability to convince a jury to disregard a 0.14 breath alcohol test, and send our client home a free man.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/319852

Continue Reading...

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...

Breaking News: Minnesota Supreme Court To Issue Bernard Decision on Wednesday

Home > Fourth Amendment > Breaking News: Minnesota Supreme Court To Issue Bernard Decision on WednesdayPosted on February 9, 2015 by Dan Koewler

We just received notice that the Minnesota Supreme Court will issue its potentially groundbreaking decision in State v. Bernard this upcoming Wednesday, February 11, 2015. In the Bernard case, the Court is being asked to decide whether it is constitutional for the government to criminalize an individual's refusal to submit to a warrantless (and thus presumptively illegal) search.

Want to know more?

You've got two days to watch the oral arguments presented in the case here.

You can read some of our speculation here.

We were given permission to file an amicus curiae brief in this case, and filed on behalf of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, two very notable and worthy defense organizations in Minnesota.

Any further speculation on this decision is pointless at this point, as we'll have our answer in two days. With hundreds of cases on hold pending this decision, Wednesday is certain to be a very big day.

Continue Reading...

Super Bowl Sunday: fewer DUIs in Minnesota than previous years

Super Bowl Sunday is an unofficial holiday here in the United States, and as a result, many people take the liberty of enjoying some beers during the biggest football game on the planet. Unfortunately, this can lead to some unfortunate events during Super Bowl Sunday, such as people consuming alcohol and then getting behind the wheel of a car.

In past years in Minnesota, the DUI numbers have not been pretty on Super Bowl Sunday. For example, since 2010, an average of 190 people have been arrested for drinking and driving on Super Bowl Sunday. However, this year it was a much different story.

Only 65 people were arrested for driving under the influence on Super Bowl Sunday, a marked decline from the average numbers posted since 2010. It's also part of a fantastic trend in the state of Minnesota regarding drunk driving overall. 2014 saw about 1,500 fewer DUI arrests than 2013. Public awareness campaigns and the reception by our state's great citizens has led to a dramatic drop in the number of drunk driving cases.

And yet, no amount of public awareness or public knowledge will ever truly eliminate drunk driving from our state. There will always be mistakes made by people who simply have a little too much to drink, think they are okay to drive, and then do so.

While acknowledging this reality, it's also important to acknowledge that people who are accused of drunk driving have rights, and that they are innocent until proven guilty. 

Source: WCCO, "Super Bowl Drunk Driving Arrests Down Significantly In Minnesota," Feb. 2, 2015

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

Consequences For Minnesota DWIs Continue to Climb

Posted on January 2, 2015 by Dan Koewler

Minnesota's DWI Task Force - a body comprised of a broad array of prosecutors, judges, members of law enforcement agencies, other government employees, and private citizens - is set to make its recommendations to the Minnesota Legislature in 2015. As reported recently by the Star Tribune, the task force met at the end of 2014 to solidify its recommendations to the legislature for the upcoming year.

Some of the recommendations are interesting:

-Impoundment of all license plates for anyone arrested for driving while impaired. In keeping with the steadily-expanding policy of punishing drivers before, not after, they are summoned to court, the Task Force is recommending that everyone arrested for DWI have their license plates impounded immediately, at the scene of the stop. Simply being arrested for DWI, even if you ultimately test below the legal limit, will result in a permanent sticker placed across your license plate, and you will need new plates ("whiskey" plates reissued standard plates) to replace the impounded ones.

-Reducing the need for drivers on ignition interlock to pre-pay for a year of car insurance, allowing payment plans for license reinstatement fees, and removing the DWI "written test." Currently, every driver who is required to enroll on the ignition interlock program not only needs to pay the associated installation and maintenance fees, but also needs to provide proof of an "insurance certificate." The Task Force wants to see this insurance certificate as a requirement only for drivers who have a history of driving without valid insurance. There are further recommendations to allow drivers to pay the hefty license reinstatement fee of $680 in installments (a fee that is effectively a second, duplicative fine imposed by the State on drinking drivers, and is bordering on violating the double jeopardy clause of our Constitution . . .but I digress), and eliminating the unnecessary and time consuming written test that is currently required to get your license reinstated after a DWI.

-Increasing penalties for drivers who continue to drive after being revoked for an alcohol related offense. The Task Force wants to create a new, enhanced level for the crime of the "driving after revocation" for drivers who are revoked based upon a DWI offense. The recommendation carries no specifics, and appears geared towards both higher fines and potentially a mandatory minimum jail sentence.

-Reducing the legal limit for enhanced penalties from .20 to .16. Currently, a driver will face an increased revocation period for their driver's license if they submit to a test that reports a result at or above .16. However, increased jail penalties and maximum sentences are only imposed if a test is above .20. The Task Force wants to make all increased penalties occur at the .16 threshold.

The Task Force is not currently recommending that the legal limit be lowered to .05, although that idea is gaining steam nationally and it is only a matter of time before it is considered. The Task Force also refused to consider recommending that Minnesota's DWI Forfeiture Law be repealed, meaning that in the near future we can continue to expect police to seize vehicles involved in DWI offenses. Finally, it appears that the Task Force will take no position on the fact that Minnesota's DWI law will punish drivers regardless of whether they were forced to drive to save their lives - the centuries-old common law defense of "necessity" is not currently available in Minnesota, and the Task Force chose not to push to add it. This refusal to act also calls into question other aspects of our law - for example, is just having a prescription drug in your system enough to mandate that you lose your license? Failure to clarify the law on this point will continue to cause significant problems into 2015.

None of these recommendations are law, as of yet, and the issues that the Task Force avoided may still be written into law by the Legislature. We're just providing a little peek behind the curtain, and staying up to speed on any potential changes that may become law in the future.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/318906

Continue Reading...

DWI crackdown in Minnesota sees uptick in arrests

Did you know that for at least the past two years, Minnesota State Police have been conducting major drunk driving crackdowns from Thanksgiving to New Year's Eve? Yes, patrols have been increased during this window, and the statistics that these crackdowns have revealed will certainly prove useful to many people and organizations.

According to the most recent crackdown (2013), more people were caught for driving under the influence of alcohol than the previous year (2012). In fact, there were 84 more people caught by the police for DWI in 2013.

However, this unfortunate statistic is offset by a more positive one: annual deaths related to drunk driving plummeted by 59 percent from 2003 to 2013.

It's an interesting set of statistics that paint two totally different pictures. On the one hand, the recent crackdowns seem to show that drunk driving is on the rise. But the fatalities related to drunk driving seem to show a sharp decline in the number of drunk driving incidents. Going from 196 drunk driving deaths in 2003 to just 81 deaths in 2013 is an astonishing turnaround.

What should be abundantly clear by now is that no one should get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after they have been consuming alcohol. Sadly, this realization just doesn't seem to be setting in with everyone, though there are some signs of improvement.

Avoid the driver's seat once you have had an alcoholic beverage. Taking that risk only opens you up to liability and immense penalties.

Source: Grand Forks Herald, "Monthlong DWI crackdown results in 2,537 DWI arrests across Minnesota," Lisa Kaczke, Jan. 7, 2015

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

How can you get a DUI in the state of Minnesota?

The title of this post may seem like a silly question. "Obviously if you drive with a blood alcohol level that exceeds 0.08, you can get a DUI" is probably what popped into your head, and that is correct. A blood alcohol content that exceeds 0.08 can earn you a drunk driving arrest. However, there are other circumstances in which you can get a DUI, or a different DUI charge, in the state of Minnesota.

For example, if you are underage, the state of Minnesota has a zero tolerance policy for drinking and driving. That means someone under the age of 21 can't have any alcohol in their system. Even a BAC of 0.01 for an underage driver can result in a DUI.

Another variation of the law is that if you have a blood alcohol level that exceeds 0.16, you could receive an "enhanced" (usually called "aggravated") DUI charge. This will carry tougher penalties and affect your life in a variety of ways.

Also, remember that in Minnesota if you are arrested for a DUI, you must adhere to the "implied consent" law. This law says that you have to consent to a breath, blood or urine test, though you are allowed to refuse a preliminary test.

As we hinted at above, there are many penalties that someone can face when they are arrested on suspicion of DUI. They could have their license suspended for months, or even a year depending on the severity of the charge or if there are past drunk driving offenses. Your vehicle could also be confiscated, or you could be required to use an ignition interlock.

Source: FindLaw, "Minnesota DWI Laws," Accessed Sept. 19, 2014

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

Specialty DWI courts can help avoid jail time in Minnesota

Everybody makes mistakes at one time or another. One commonly made mistake is driving while under the influence of alcohol, which can cause a DWI charge. This can result in significant time behind bars. However, the growing demand for DWI specialty courts in Minnesota can help many convicted of a DWI from having to spend time in jail for multiple offenses.

The specialty courts designed to process repeat offenders of DWI laws have been shown to reduce recidivism while also saving money for taxpayers, according to a recent study. The two-year study revealed that almost all nine of the specialty DWI courts examined had significantly lower recidivism rates compared to chronic offenders who go through the standard court procedure. This has prompted a call for an expansion of the specialty court program.

The DWI specialty courts are designed to allow certain chronic offenders who qualify to avoid serving time behind bars. The policies of the specialty court program focus more on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Not only does this save money for taxpayers having to house more individuals behind bars, it also keeps the offenders in the programs working and contributing to society. This results in increased tax revenue for the government, which can be spent on other programs and services.

However, in order to take advantage of this specialty DWI court program, one will have to understand the rules in place for qualifying. Alternatively, in some cases in Minnesota, it may be possible to completely avoid a conviction in the first place. On the other hand, each situation will be different. Legal strategies should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Source: startribune.com, "Minnesota's specialty courts for chronic drunken drivers reduce recidivism and costs, national study finds", David Chanen, Nov. 20, 2014

Tags: Drunk Driving Charges

Continue Reading...

Minnesota Supreme Court Holds Oral Arguments Today Regarding Minnesota's DWI Laws

Home > Fourth Amendment > Minnesota Supreme Court Holds Oral Arguments Today Regarding Minnesota's DWI LawsPosted on December 10, 2014 by Chuck Ramsay

Big things are about to happen at the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the most visible evidence is going on this morning in two cases: In State v. Larson, the Court will address whether Minnesota should adopt the "good-faith" exception to the rule that the State cannot use unconstitutionally obtained evidence against an individual in court. In State v. Lindquist, the Court will address the same issue, with the added wrinkle of determining if the McNeely decision was "retroactive" (applies to cases that came before the United States Supreme Court issued its decision). 

While many are eagerly awaiting the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision on Bernard (determining the constitutionality of making test refusal a criminal act), the Minnesota Supreme Court is quietly considering other cases as well, cases dealing with 1) Exigency; 2) this "Good Faith Exception"; and, 3) specific application of the McNeely decision in a variety of other cases.

If I was a betting man, here's what I'd predict: I expect the Court to simultaneously issue its decisions in the cases being argued today alongside the Bernard decision argued in September. That would set the stage for the Court to: 1) finally strike down the criminal refusal law as unconstitutional; 2) more carefully define what does and does not constitute "exigency" in the DWI context; and 3) adopt the good-faith exception.  

While recognizing the absurdity of the criminal test refusal law (which makes it a crime for citizens to refuse to waive their fundamental constitutional right against warrantless searches), the court will “save” pending cases by recognizing the good-faith exception. Drivers who were duped into “consenting” to DWI blood, breath or urine tests will be unable to avail themselves of the court’s recognition that police cannot obtain consent by threatening them with an unconstitutional law.  

Such a resolution would add a much needed touch of finality to the current state of confusion regarding Minnesota's DWI laws. From that point forward, the government could no longer charge drivers with the crime of test refusal (but they could still revoke their licenses and use the fact that they refused against them at trial). And in the same breath, it would clear the courts of the backlog of criminal cases building up as attorneys and judges wait for further guidance from the highest court in Minnesota.

This is not what I would like to see, this is just what I am predicting. Soon, we'll explain exactly why a "good faith exception" is anything but good, and how the best way to maintain a free society is to continue to attach real consequences to the government when someone's Constitutional rights are violated.

But today, if you have the time and the inclination, stop by the Minnesota Supreme Court and watch two oral arguments that are going to lead to some pretty groundbreaking decisions in the near future.

Continue Reading...

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules "Necessity" Defense Does Not Apply to DWI

Posted on May 21, 2014 by Dan Koewler

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Axelberg v. Commission of Public Safety. In a 4-3 decision, the Court concluded that Minnesota's Commissioner of Public Safety has the absolute authority to revoke the driver's license of an intoxicated victim of domestic abuse if she (or he) tries to flee (or even hide from) their attacker in a motor vehicle.

The facts of the Axelberg case are sordid, and we laid them out for our readers when the Supreme Court accepted review of this case, but the case can be effectively summarized this way: Axelberg, who had been drinking, was assaulted by her husband at a remote location where they were vacationing. Axelberg, without a cell phone, eventually locked herself in her car to avoid her husband's assault. After he punched the windshield hard enough to break it, she started the vehicle and fled to a nearby resort, driving less than a mile. Axelberg's husband followed her on foot, and was only prevented from further assaulting Axelberg when police were called to the resort.

Axelberg's husband was arrested and taken into custody . . . and the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Axelberg's driver's license due to the fact that her alcohol concentration was over the legal limit. The Minnesota Attorney General's Office appeared in Court, and argued that it not only had the right to revoke Axelberg's driver's license, but also that Axelberg did not even have the right to explain why she drove while over the legal limit, or raise the ancient, common law defense of "necessity."

Four justices from the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the government attorneys, and concluded that Axelberg was precluded from even arguing that her flight to safety (for 9/10 of a mile along a deserted rural road) was permissible under Minnesota's Implied Consent law. Effectively, the Court concluded that because the Implied Consent law does not explicitly permit intoxicated drivers to flee from domestic assault as a last resort, the defense is entirely unavailable no matter how severe the situation. Today, Axelberg not only lost her license as a result of her decision to hide from her attacker, but this license revocation is treated exactly like a conviction for DWI for the purposes of enhancing future offenses.

The decision in Axelberg prompted three strongly worded dissents from three justices. One of the dissents, authored by Justice Lillehaug, wasted no time pointing out that the Commissioner of Public Safety, responsible for punishing Axelberg for her decision to flee from domestic abuse, has the statutory responsibility to promote, "the highest attainable standards of . . . justice for crime victims" and is actually expected, by statute, to advocate for the rights of victims of domestic violence. The dissent then pointed out that "it is hard to imagine that the Legislature intended that the judiciary revoke the license of victims who drive only to escape domestic violence."

A second dissent, authored by Justice Wright, underscored just how unreasonable the result in Axelberg really is, emphasizing that the role of our judicial system has always been to be fair, and that the defense of "necessity" has existed for centuries for just that reason - fairness in the application of our laws. Justice Wright then took the time to carefully outline the serious problems that our society continues to face when it comes to domestic violence - importantly pointing out how access to a vehicle should provide a level of independence and security to a battered woman . . . and not another shackle tying her to her abuser.

The final dissent, authored by Justice Page, neatly summarized the decision reached by the majority when it pointed out that, "By its decision, the court also discourages domestic abuse victims from even seeking refuge in a motor vehicle. Based on our case law, today's decision deprives many victims of domestic violence of the only available refuge." This dissent also highlighted a great deal of case law that would support the application of the "necessity" defense in an Implied Consent hearing.

The Axelberg case is a very troubling one, calling into question not just the problems our society continues to have with drunk drivers and domestic violence, but what role we expect our laws and our judges to fill in ordering that society. This includes questions about the role of our government attorneys, who pressed the Axelberg case all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Needless to say, as the authors of the amicus curiae brief that we filed in support of Axelberg, we are disappointed in the result reached in this case. Even more hard work was put into this case by Ryan Pacyga and his team, from the start of this case in Kanabec County all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The one question that needs to be answered now is this: does the Legislature have the political will to fix this situation and protect the rights of domestic abuse victims against an overly rigid set of DWI laws?

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mndwidefenseblog.com/admin/trackback/314498

Continue Reading...