In Minnesota, DWI refers to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of both. In order for DWI to be dismissed, or otherwise disposed of with favorable results, a competent criminal defense lawyer is critical. The consequences of a DWI conviction in Minnesota can be severe and may include the following: Criminal Penalties: The specific penalties for DWI offenses vary depending on factors such as the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC), other drugs found to be present in the body within a period of time from the driving conduct, prior DWI convictions, and any aggravating factors present. Penalties can include fines, probation, mandatory alcohol education or treatment programs, community service, and even incarceration. Repeat offenses or those involving aggravating factors, like a prior DWI or multiple DWIs, the presence of a minor in the car, an accident associated with the alleged drunk driving, can result in more severe penalties. Your criminal defense lawyer will know this in detail. Driver’s License Revocation: Upon a DWI arrest and failed test for drugs or alcohol, the driver’s license may be subject to immediate administrative revocation. The length of the revocation period depends on various factors, including the driver’s BAC, prior DWI convictions, and whether or not the driver refused chemical testing. A first-time DWI offense typically results in a 90-day license revocation, but it can be longer for subsequent offenses or refusal to test. Criminal Record: A DWI conviction in Minnesota results in a criminal record, and statutes currently restrict expungement in most cases. This can have long-lasting consequences. Besides incarceration and fines, a criminal record can affect employment prospects, housing opportunities, educational pursuits, professional licenses, insurance costs, and other aspects of a person’s life. Be sure to tell your criminal defense attorney what you do for a living and whether you have a commercial driver’s license. Increased Insurance Rates: DWI convictions typically lead to significantly higher insurance premiums, as insurance companies view convicted drunk drivers as high-risk individuals. The increased rates can persist for several years after the conviction. The increase in insurance premiums resulting from just being charged with DWI can range from $50 to hundreds of dollars per month. Be sure to tell your criminal defense lawyer if there have been any other increases to your insurance premiums for other reasons. Ignition Interlock OR Limited License (IILL): In some cases, individuals whose licenses are revoked may be eligible for an Ignition Interlock OR limited license, also known as a restricted license. A restricted license without interlock is typically applicable where the defendant has no prior DWIs, and has blown or otherwise tested for alcohol below a .16. This license allows individuals to drive under specific circumstances, such as commuting to work, attending treatment programs, or meeting other essential needs. If it higher than that, or this a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th DWI, the driver will be required to have an ignition interlock. This is a restricted license, and the restriction is that any… Read more {+}
Posts Tagged DWI Attorney Minnesota
Just say everything but “no” to implied consent.
“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 {+}
McNeely and You
You’ve been charged with a DWI. You may have ultimately taken a breath test, urine test, or blood test that resulted in an alcohol concentration of over .08, perhaps much higher. It is absolutely essential that you are aware of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. McNeely, which can be found by here clicking here. This is a sea change in DWI law. When selecting at attorney, you need to make sure not only that they are aware of this case, but that they understand its relationship with Minnesota law and that your attorney is one who is heavily invested and engaged in fighting DWIs pursuant to McNeely. Don’t let a lawyer tell you that “McNeely only applies to blood tests” or that you “consented” to the test or any such thing. The U.S. Supreme Court just vacated the judgments in two Minnesota DWI cases where a urine test was used, and in Minnesota law, a breath test is even more coerced because you don’t have a right to an alternative test. It is irresponsible for your attorney not to apply genuine legal issues and good faith legal challenges to your case. The County Attorneys have tried to frame the McNeely case as outlining the circumstances under which an officer can take your blood, breath, or urine for chemical testing. But McNeely actually does not spell out those circumstances, and in fact places a great burden on the state. McNeely states that “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 means the police have to at least attempt to get a warrant before taking your blood. Believe it or not, this is not a new law. Warrantless chemical tests of blood, urine and breath have been deemed to have violated the Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure for some time, as anunciated in Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 616-17, (1989). The problem has been that there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, and one in particular has been distorted into a systematic violation of the Fourth Amendment in Minnesota for decades. One exception is exigent circumstances. The State must demonstrate that there is a grave exigency to obtain the chemical test in a certain period of time, and that obtaining that evidence would be delayed significantly if they had to get a warrant. Minnesota DWI law provides that the chemical test must be able to demonstrate the alcohol concentration within two hours of driving. The courts in Minnesota have erroneously ruled that, because alcohol starts to leave your system after it goes to your brain, this creates a “per se” exigency. McNeely specifically rejects and nullifies this per se rule. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that much of the law surrounding chemical testing for alcohol is quite old, and that modern technology allows for police to obtain warrant telephonically in a matter… Read more {+}