In Minnesota, a person can be charged with a DWI/DUI for having more than alcohol in their system; they can also be charged for being under the influence of drugs even if they have a valid prescription for them. Controlled substances can impede a person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle. Even if the drug is prescribed, it can still be illegal to drive while under the influence of it if it is a Schedule I or II controlled substance. Here are some instances of how a person can receive a DWI in Minneapolis while under the influence of controlled substances: An individual sustains an injury in an accident and her doctor prescribes her Vicodin so she can tolerate the pain. She gets in her car to run to the store for milk, but an officer notices that she swerved left of center, so he pulls her over. He suspects her of driving under the influence, so she submits to the requested tests and it is found that she has narcotics in her system. Because Vicodin is a Schedule II drug, it is illegal to drive after taking it, even if it is prescribed. A college student goes to a party and smokes marijuana. He declined alcohol since he didn’t have a designated driver. On his way home, a patrol officer notices he has a broken headlight, so he pulls him over. The officer determines that the student may be under the influence of a substance, so he has the student submit to urine testing. When the marijuana is found in his system, he is charged with DWI. A gentleman decides to get his ATV and go mudding with some of his friends. He has a friend to pick him up because the side effects of the Adderall. He hits the trails with his friends, but he flips the ATV and someone calls the police. Because Adderall is a Schedule II controlled substance, he can be charged with DWI although he has a prescription. Many individuals throughout Minneapolis and St. Paul do not have prescriptions for the prescription drugs that they take. They may steal them off of family members, friends, or they get them illegally on the Internet. Either way, there is a need for a Minneapolis DWI attorney to help defend against the charges. There are times when a prescription drug DWI charge can be successfully challenged. Minnesota statute 169A.46 subd. 2 offers an affirmative defense when a person is charged with a prescription drug charge. There is a clause in subdivision 1 that states a person can prove that they were taking their prescription according to the orders of their doctor. If this fact is presented, then it is possible for the charges to be dismissed. The only downfall to this defense is most defendants will testify in their own defense, which means the burden of proof leaves the shoulders of the prosecution and moves to the defense. Your attorney will provide you with advice on what… Read more {+}
Posts Categorized DWI, DUI
The importance of responding immediately with “I’m invoking my 5th Amendment right to counsel”
Under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant is given the right to not testify. This means that the judge, prosecutor, and even the lawyer of the defendant cannot force them to testify on their own behalf in fear that they may self-incriminate without intending to do so. Any time someone says, “I plead to the Fifth” or “pleading to the Fifth,” they are doing so because it is their right to not answer questions. When in the custody of police or when in court, a person can exercise their Fifth Amendment right to not self-incriminate. The origin of this right is rather interesting in that it originates from the refusal of the Puritans to cooperate with the English interrogators. The Puritans would often be tortured or coerced into confessing their religious affiliation and they would be considered guilty if they were silent. English law granted the right for citizens to not self-incriminate in the mid-1600s when a revolution created the greater parliamentary power. This right then followed the Puritans to America, where it would be included in the Bill of Rights. When you are pulled over for DWI or you are charged with any type of criminal offense, you do not have to answer the questions of law enforcement. You can invoke your Fifth Amendment right to stay silent until you have counsel present. Your Miranda Rights say that you have the “right to remain silent” and that “anything you say or do can be used against you in a court of law.” It also states you have the “right to an attorney.” When you contact your attorney after invoking your Fifth Amendment right, your attorney will advise you on what you should and should not say. You can have your attorney present during questioning so that you do not self-incriminate yourself. Even if you feel your statement is completely innocent, it can be misconstrued by law enforcement to mean something that it doesn’t and this can be used against you in court. By invoking your Fifth Amendment right to counsel, you could be making the difference between freedom and conviction. It is important to note that the Fifth Amendment right to self-incrimination does not extend to blood tests, fingerprinting, or DNA evidence that is being gathered for a criminal case. The Supreme Court has upheld that the privilege only extends to communicative evidence, such as interrogation. DNA and fingerprints, in particular are considered non-communicative or non-testimonial. The importance of responding immediately with “I’m invoking my 5th Amendment right to counsel” was last modified: November 19th, 2014 by Alex DeMarco
DWI for Sleeping In the Car: Can it Happen?
It has been seen in the news time and time again that individuals have been arrested for DWI for sleeping in their cars. Some individuals simply go to their car to “sleep it off” before they take to the roads. When they have been at a bar and they simply don’t have a ride home or money for a cab, that’s what they decide to do in some cases. So when the question regarding whether or not a person can get a DWI for sleeping in their car is asked, the answer to the question is “it depends.” It was in 2010 that the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a decision regarding this issue. While the court did not say that every person who is asleep behind the wheel of a parked car will get a DWI, it does send a message that being over the legal blood alcohol content of .08 while behind the wheel of a vehicle, even if the vehicle was not driven, could result in a DWI charge in Minnesota. This charge could ultimately lead to a conviction. The case is known as State v. Fleck and it is in this case that Mr. Fleck was parked in his apartment building’s parking lot while intoxicated. A neighbor called the police because they saw Mr. Fleck sleeping in the driver’s seat of his car with the door of the car open. Fleck had not been driving the vehicle, which was determined by officers because the car was not warm to the touch. The car had not been running, the lights were not on. His keys were in the center console rather than in the ignition. Before the case went to trial, officers had attempted to start the vehicle, but they could not start it. There was nothing that indicated the car was operable. Mr. Fleck received the DWI charge because he was in “physical control” of the vehicle while he was impaired. The Minnesota courts define “physical control” as a situation in which an intoxicated person is found in a parked motor vehicle in which the vehicle could be started without much difficulty and become a source of danger to others or the operator. In other words, you have physical control of the vehicle if the means to put the vehicle into motion exists or you are in close proximity to the vehicle’s controls. In State v. Juncewsky (Minn 1981), the court recognized that the law does not apply to passengers who hand over control of the car to another driver. It has also been determined that being around or in the vehicle is not enough to show a person has physical control. Instead, the court considered the situation as a whole, including the location of the keys, the proximity to the vehicle or the location within, whether or not the person was a passenger, the vehicle owner, and whether the vehicle would start. There are some individuals who have had no intention of driving the car, but… Read more {+}