“Finally, Petitioner argues Mr. Jones was subjected to an unreasonable warrantless search. Contained within this argument the court finds Petitioner’s more persuasive assertion: Mr. Jones did not refuse to take a blood or urine test because he stated he would take a test once a warrant was obtained.” Recent order in Rice County DWI Implied Consent case (Names changed). So we haven’t blogged DWI in awhile and we’re gonna blow through this like Terry Tate enforcing an office. First of all, for total newbs, we just dropped “implied consent” on you. What’s that? The law that says “hey by virtue of driving in Minnesota, you consent anytime to have yourself tested for booze or drugs whenever we want.” You’d probably remember this from your driver’s license application, if it was on there, which it’s not, but ignorance isn’t a defense, so on we go. Bottom line, besides the criminal charges, “State vs. you”, there’s the civil case, “You vs. Commissioner of Public Safety”, which you need to file within 30 days of receiving your notice of revocation. If you don’t do that, your license is gone. Period. Hard and fast deadline. That’s the two sides of DWI law, the criminal, the civil. So this comes from that challenge to the license revocation. How about the criminal? It was so good, the test refusal charges, the serious DWI Charge, was dismissed by the prosecutor upon our motion before we even got to a hearing. The state has now has to prosecute the matter with no field sobriety tests, no alcohol concentration, no evidence. How did it get so good? Because this guy called an attorney who understood what he needed to know right there, right then. We’ve written previously regarding the bombshell that opened up DWI litigation three years ago in Missouri v. McNeely. If you’re facing a DWI and you haven’t heard of this court case, the one liner states: “In those drunk-driving investigations where police officers can reasonably obtain a warrant before a blood sample can be drawn without significantly undermining the efficacy of the search, the Fourth Amendment mandates that they do so.” That’s the Supreme Court of the United States; the highest Court in the land. Blood, breath, and urine tests are all searches for fourth amendment purposes. (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association). Some people thought it didn’t apply to Minnesota because we don’t force a test like Missouri. Call it Minnesota nice, or laziness, whatever you want, but the bottom line is that a person is given a supposed “choice” on whether to take the test or not. In other words, we say “we don’t wanna touch you or force you to do anything, but if you don’t subject yourself to this warrantless search, we’re gonna charge you with an even worse crime.” So initially,some folks thought this didn’t apply to Minnesota. Oops. Two urine test cases from Minnesota get reversed by SCOTUS a few weeks later. It suffices to say a lot of case law has… Read more {+}

Just this week, Judge Alan F. Pendleton of Anoka County suppressed a breath test in a DWI case pursuant to the landmark case of Missouri v. McNeely, which we can now confidently assign the term “landmark” given its affect nationwide on DWI law. This particular ruling is a sea change in Minnesota because of the influence of this Judge. Judge Pendleton publishes bi-weekly judicial training updates and is particularly knowledgeable and well regarded for his fourth amendment jurisprudence. He has also added compliance with McNeely to his training update. The opinion is also far more detailed and comprehensive with regard to his historical analysis search and seizure than prior positive McNeely opinions in Minnesota. The timing of this opinion could not be more critical. It follows on the heels of several test suppressions, including those in Rice County and Steele County, after an initial phase of districts erroneously upholding chemical testing without a warrant. It also comes right before the July 4th Holiday, and two weekends in a row of “increased DWI enforcement.” If County Attorneys offices were serious about protecting public safety, to the extent that means prosecuting drunk driving successfully, they would have begun implementing a system of telephonic warrants for chemical testing in DWI cases months ago. Instead, prosecutors remain obstinant, betting on the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Minnesota issuing some opinion to get around McNeely. This lack of action on the part of Counties demonstrates a mentality of enitlement. The Counties believe they are basically entitled to a steady stream of DWI convictions and revenue, and similarly the Department of Public Safety and even some private companies have financial interests at stake in the fees and expenses surrounding the process by which a revoked driver comes to get their driving privileges back. The Judiciary in contrast has slowed it’s knee jerk reaction to try to distinguish McNeely as some radical opinion that is not applicable to Minnesota, and is instead taking action to RESTORE the Fourth Amendment, This is critical since this right has been dismantled over the past four decades by caselaw pertaining to traffic stops, vehicle searches, searches of the person, and DWI. While McNeely is a landmark case, it is not truly a radical opinion, and is not unprecedented. In fact, before the advent of chemical testing in DWI, Fourth Amendment protections for searching a person’s body were fairly robust. Indeed, the current circumstance in which a person’s body has less protection than their home or office, seems counterintuitive, and stands in stark contrast to the state of the law just 50 or 60 years ago. A combination of several factors led to the rapid decline of this protection, with the automobile itself being a culprit of sorts. As car ownership increased, people began to travel greater distances and with more frequency, including daily commuting to and from work, and from the after bar. Inevitably, increased traffic accidents and fatalities followed leading to greater public safety concerns to which municipal… Read more {+}

Posts Tagged Apple Valley DUI attorney

Just say everything but “no” to implied consent.

It’s time for the Justice System to Restore the Fourth Amendment for Drivers

Practice Areas

Criminal Defense