DUI | Minnesota DWI DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney

Posts Tagged ‘DUI’

License Plate Impoundment in Minnesota DUI or DWI Cases – The “Scarlet Letter”

Saturday, April 28th, 2012

As a DWI attorney in Minnesota for 17 years, when I first meet individuals charge with a DUI or DWI offense, it is a rather emotional situation for the prospective client. They are now under the stressful realization that they’ve been charged with a crime and are about to enter a legal maze full of potential pitfalls. This is where we help alleviate these stresses by making our clients knowledgeable about the process and how we can navigate and plan our strategy to ultimately receive an excellent outcome in their respective case.

One of the biggest concerns expressed by clients at these initial meetings is with regard to potential license plate impoundment or what I like sometimes refer to as the state’s “scarlet letter” on the driver charged with a certain level of DUI offense. It can be extremely frustrating for the family of a driver subject to such an order, because the plate impoundment order applies not only to the vehicle in which they were driving, but also any other vehicle registered in his or her name whether owned jointly or individually. Usually, the driver has an added sense of grief because now an innocent family member may be subject to driving their vehicle with license plates clearly branded as a “whiskey” or DWI plate. As this becomes more frequent, they also become more identifiable to other motorists on the roadway adding to the embarrassment one may feel.

In addition, since July 1st, 2011, the state has now broadened those that are subject to a plate impoundment by making it mandatory for the driver to surrender their license plates if their blood alcohol concentration is a .16 or more as opposed to the earlier .20 or more. This is required regardless of whether the driver has any prior DWI convictions on their record. The driver does have the opportunity to challenge the plate impoundment order and a few counties allow a temporary reinstatement of regular non-DWI plates while the driver is awaiting the outcome of their hearing.

Plate impoundment occurs in the following situations: one is charged with a DWI within 10 years of a prior DWI conviction or prior license revocation that was the result of a DWI conviction; the driver had a BAC of 0.16% or more; a child under the age of 16 was in the vehicle when the offense occurred; or the offense took place while the driver’s license was canceled for being inimical to public safety.

A plate impoundment order applies both to the motor vehicle involved in the DWI offense, and any motor vehicle registered, owned, or leased in the name of the DWI offender, whether solely or jointly owned. An arresting officer may issue a plate impoundment order, which is effective immediately, at the time of the arrest. The plates are then seized by the officer and a seven-day temporary vehicle permit is issued (or 45 days if the offender is not the vehicle’s owner).

A plate impoundment has a minimum term of 1 year, during which, the offender is prohibited to drive a motor vehicle unless the person driving has been re-licensed to drive, and coded plates are displayed on the vehicle. When acquiring or selling a vehicle during the plate impoundment period, the offender is subject to certain restrictions. A person may appeal to license plate impoundment administratively or judicially.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a DWI or DUI offense, it is imperative that they seek the immediate advice of an experienced Minnesota DUI Lawyer. The attorney will first need to review their respective case to see if the driver is subject to such a plate impoundment order and then be able to advise the client how to proceed in challenging the order.

Tags: DUI, license plate impoundment, Minnesota DWI, whiskey plates
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Minnesota Implied Consent Law – A Summary

Saturday, April 21st, 2012

Pursuant to the Minnesota implied consent law, a person who chooses to drive, operate, or be in physical control of a motor vehicle is assumed to have already consented to a breath, urine, or blood test to determine the presence of alcohol or hazardous or controlled substance in the body. This chemical test is administered only after a law police officer has already established there is probable cause to believe a DWI violation has occurred and the person has been subsequently placed under arrest for DWI. So, when is probable cause established?

Probable cause exists only after a police officer reasonably suspects an impaired driving violation by observing impaired driving behavior. This can be established by the officer’s observations of any erratic driving conduct prior to the traffic stop. Another factor is any observation the officer may make about the driver after the stop such as slurred speech, bloodshot watery eyes and overall appearance. The officer will also judge the driver’s performance on Field Sobriety Tests. Generally, after these tests a thorough officer will ask the driver to perform a preliminary breath test or PBT test to confirm his or her belief of impairment.

If an officer believes that probable has been established, the officer may place the driver under arrest and then, only after reading the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory, request an evidentiary breath, urine, or blood test. The officer is required to read the implied consent advisory statement explaining that the test is mandatory, refusal to take the test is a crime, and the driver has the right to consult or speak with an attorney before agreeing to take the test. The individual is given a “reasonable period” of time under the “totality of circumstances” standard to contact an attorney.

As with the blood test, a person who is offered a urine test by the police officer must also be offered an alternative test. The rational is that some individuals are adverse to needles and they shouldn’t be charged with the crime of refusal simply because of this fact. The same rational applies to those who are offered a urine test, but for some reason are not able to physically urinate at the time. For an unconscious person, consent is deemed not to have been withdrawn and the test may be administered. It is the officer that decides whether to administer a breath, urine or blood test. The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) analyzes blood and urine samples and forwards the results to Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS).

Tags: Arrest, DUI, implied consent, Minnesota DWI, probable cause
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Minnesota DWI Implied Consent Test Certification: Is Defective Good Enough?

Wednesday, April 7th, 2010

On March 30, 2010, the Minnesota Court of Appeals filed an unpublished opinion in a case entitled Kruckow v. Comissioner of Public Safety, in which the petitioner, Ms. Kruckow, challenged the revocation of her driver’s license under Minnesota’s Implied Consent law with two arguments: First, she challenged the certification of her test results because it appeared that the officer had certified her urine test results before the test results were actually known; and second, she argued that her procedural due process rights had been violated because the test results weren’t certified properly. The Appellate Court disagreed.

Police officers must comply with certification requirements when determining whether there is probable cause to request an individual suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol to submit to a breath, urine or blood test under the Implied Consent law in Minnesota, according to Minnesota Statute section 169A.52 subd. 4(a), which reads:

“Upon certification by the peace officer that there existed probable cause to believe the person had been driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired) and that the person submitted to a test and the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more or the presence of a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II . . . then the commissioner shall revoke the person’s license. . .”

This certification is really line nine on the Implied Consent form; officers check the box next to line nine once they have the results of a person’s blood, breath or urine test and those results indicate an alcohol concentration of over 0.08. The officer then signs the form and this is the certification to which the statute refers.

Kruckow challenged the certification in her case because the signature and the checking of the box in line nine were in a different color ink and she argued it appeared as though the box had been checked and the signature completed before her urine test results had been returned.

In disagreeing with Kruckow, the Appellate Court cited to a case entitled Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, decided in 2006, in which the Court of Appeals stated that even when a peace officer’s certificate is defectively completed, as long as the officer provides other supporting documentation – like the officer’s narrative report, the notice of order and revocation and the test results showing the individual’s blood alcohol was over the legal limit – the certification is proper.

The second argument Krukcow made unsuccessfully was that her procedural due process rights had been violated because of the improper certification. The Court again disagreed and cited to Johnson, stating that the alleged improper certification had not created “a direct and personal harm,” which is what is required to prove a procedural due process violation. In this case as well, the Court stated that because it was undisputed that Kruckow’s urine test results were 0.18, she also had not proven a direct and personal harm, which would have given her due process argument merit.

Tags: certification, driving while impaired, DUI, implied consent, Implied Consent Law, license revocation, Minnesota DWI, urine test
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »