License Revocation | Minnesota DWI DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney

Posts Tagged ‘license revocation’

New York State Moves Harshly Against Repeat Drunk Drivers

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made a startling announcement earlier this week when he revealed that the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles had revoked the driving privileges of 3,164 people. The move was part of an attempt by Cuomo to crack down on repeat drunk drivers by stiffening the penalties associated with multiple drunk driving convictions.

Just last year the governor ordered the state’s DMV to find ways to toughen the punishment for those drivers who are repeatedly arrested for driving impaired on New York roadways. Specifically, Cuomo ordered the DMV to begin denying relicensing to individuals who have racked up five or more alcohol or drug-related driving convictions. The new tougher rules also said that those drivers with more than two such drug or alcohol-related convictions on their license in the last 25 years would lose their driving privileges for an additional five years.

Since the rule change was handed down last September, 1,658 people have permanently lost their licenses; meaning they will no longer be able to enjoy the privilege of driving. Another 1,506 individuals in New York have had their licenses suspended for an additional five years.

Critics have slammed the move, saying it is harshly punishing people with alcohol addictions. The move to permanently revoke a driver’s license can cause substantial hardship to those who may have gone through an especially rough patch in their lives but are now trying to turn a new corner. The added strain of not being able to drive a car and get around in such a mobile society can create serious problems and even hinder those drivers’ abilities to regain their place as productive members of society.

The criticism has been especially vocal about cases where permanent bans have been placed on young drivers. Handing down a lifetime punishment to someone with decades left to live is arguably too harsh for the crime and allows no room for mercy in the light of changed circumstances.

Advocates of the tough rules, including state representative Jim Tedisco, say that while they are compassionate about some people’s addictions, that compassion is not limitless and the measure is a way to place limits on dangerous behavior. Tedisco is now pushing for an even stricter law, known as Charlotte’s Law, which is before the legislature right now.
In Minnesota, there are very serious consequences for repeat offenders under the state’s Felony DWI law. However, Tedisco’s bill would even create stiff penalties for those who are found to be driving after having their licenses revoked. Under the measure, any person with a revoked license found to be driving would face an automatic four-year prison term. Tedisco says the courts are on his side, claiming that recent case decisions have made clear that driving is a privilege and laws and penalties can be changed by the legislature affecting the access to the privilege. Tedisco hopes he can convince fellow lawmakers to approve his measure, while many others are lining up to stop the increasingly punitive steps taken against drunk drivers.

If you have been arrested for a repeat DWI offense and face potentially serious consequences including harsh criminal penalties and a lengthy license revocation or cancelation, feel free to contact the attorneys at Kans Law Firm for a free consultation.

Source: CBS6Albany.com.

Tags: harsh penalties, license revocation, New York, Repeat DWI Offenders
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Minnesota DWI Offenders Able To Get Driver's License Back Sooner

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

As discussed in our earlier blogs, the new DWI law that went into effect July 1st has caused Minnesota drivers to face tougher DWI penalties, but it has also provided new options including an opportunity to immediately retrieve their license by utilizing a device that will prevent their vehicle from starting if their breath shows a certain blood alcohol level.

Repeat offenders or first-time DWI offenders with a BAC of .16 face longer periods of license revocation, but now have a chance to drive their vehicles sooner if they choose to install an ignition interlock device in their vehicles. Rather than facing long periods of revocation without the ability to drive even with a limited license or work permit, these individuals now have the option to pay for the installation of the device and also a monthly fee in order get their driving license back sooner.

After installing the interlock device, an individual ready to drive a vehicle must blow 1.5 liters of air into the handheld alcohol sensor usually placed in the dashboard. The device will not allow the vehicle start, if it detects a sufficient amount of alcohol. In addition to keeping the vehicle from starting, it will also conduct rolling or random tests after the vehicle has already started. This is apparrently designed to prevent a driver from allowing a sober person to blow into the device just to start the vehicle and to further prevent the driver from drinking while driving.

In summarry, the purpose of the interlock ignition device is to help monitor drinking and driving activities while promoting road safety that hopefully encourages changes in behavior. For those individuals charged with DWI that choose this option, it certainly will be an inconvenience, but not nearly as much as being without the ability to drive a motor vehicle on the roads of Minnesota for longer periods of time under the new laws.

Are you in need of a Minneapolis DUI lawyer? If so Douglas T. Kans is a highly regarded Minneapolis DWI attorney who will provide you with comprehensive legal services that you need to ensure the best possible resolution of your drunk driving case. You can contact Kans Law Firm at (952) 835-6314 for a free case review.

Tags: blood alcohol level, drunken driver, dwi penalties, license revocation, Minnesota DUI law, Minnesota Ignition Interlock
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 »