Minnesota DWI DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney

Posts Tagged ‘Minneapolis DWI Lawyer’

The Enhanceability of a Minnesota DWI Conviction – A Case Study

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

On this blog and within our websit we have covered what the enhanceability of a Minnesota DWI/DUI conviction means (Degrees of DWI Charges). In essence, if an individual is convicted or pleads guilty to a DWI in Minnesota, he or she is required to be advised by both the court and their attorney that a subsequent charge for DWI within a period of 10 years can be charged as a more serious level of DUI offense based on the current plea or conviction. Below is a case that best illustrates this point.

The Prior Lake Police recently arrested a 50-year-old man after receiving a call from Mystic Lake Casino security. Reports say that the casino security called the police to report a man who appeared to be intoxicated and was causing disturbance at the casino. The complaint caused the police to arrest the drunken man after he left the casino. Within just about eleven years, he got his fifth arrest for drunken driving.

After taking the Intoxilyzer test, it showed a blood alcohol content reading of 0.24 which is three times the 0.8 legal BAC limit. He was then arrested for first-degree DWI . His court records showed he has previous DWI convictions or alcohol related license revocations from May 2001 in Rice County and from September 2001, March 2003 and September 2007 in Dakota County. He was also convicted in Ramsey County of Driving After Cancellation in year 2004.

The District Court of Scott County charged him with four counts of DWI which include felony DWI of two counts, misdemeanor open-bottle offense, as well as gross misdemeanor in violation of terms of restricted driver’s license. The man is now in Scott County Jail custody on a bail of $80,000.

If you have a DWI charge, then you should contact an experienced and well-trained Minneapolis DWI Lawyer immediately to defend your DWI case. Respected Minnesota Criminal Lawyer, Douglas T. Kans, is always ready to provide you with comprehensive legal services for the best possible resolution of your DWI/DUI case. You can contact Kans Law Firm, LLC at (952) 835-6314 for a free case review.

Tags: dakota county, Felony DWI, Intoxilyzer, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, Minnesota Criminal Lawyer
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Minnesota Court of Appeals – Mobility Scooters Don’t Count for DWI

Saturday, June 25th, 2011

An Associated Press story from last week reports an interesting ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. In a published opinion, the appeals court reversed a district court decision convicting a disabled man of a third-degree DWI for being intoxicated while driving a battery-operated mobility scooter.

But before we jump into the reasons for the ruling, let’s first look at the facts of the case.

In July 26, 2009 a man named James Anthony Brown, Jr. was found driving his battery-operated, three-wheel Legend Pride Mobility Scooter on the sidewalks near a Grand Rapids car dealership. Authorities were contacted due to the suspicion that Brown was intoxicated at the time. A breath test revealed that Brown had an alcohol concentration level of 0.17, or more than twice the legal limit of .08 in the state of Minnesota. In addition, it was revealed that he had a prior 2001 DWI conviction. As a result, Brown was charged and eventually convicted of a third-degree DWI, which is a gross misdemeanor.

The district court conviction was appealed, thus the Court of Appeals ruling on the case. The defense argued that Brown, being a physically disabled individual, uses the motorized scooter as a means of mobility and substitute for walking, and that his operation of it does not constitute driving a “motor vehicle” as defined by the Minnesota Statutes:

§169A.03, subd. 15 (2010) – “Motor vehicle” means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires. The term includes motorboats in operation and off-road recreational vehicles, but does not include a vehicle moved solely by human power.

In deciding on the issue, the Court of Appeals emphasizes that “(w)ords and phrases in Minnesota’s statutes are interpreted according to their common meaning.” At the same time, neither will the court presume that the legislature intends “a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable” as expressed in Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2010).

Given these two guiding considerations, the appeals court then looked at whether Brown’s motorized mobility scooter is a “motor vehicle” as it is defined above, and decided that:

“It is plain that for purposes of traffic regulations contained in Chapter 169, Brown’s scooter is a wheelchair and is not a motor vehicle, and Brown, who uses the scooter as a substitute for walking, is, while operating his scooter, a pedestrian.”

We should add that Section 169.011, subd. 93 (2008) of the Minnesota Statutes defines “wheelchair” to include “any manual or motorized wheelchair, scooter, tricycle, or similar device used by a disabled person as a substitute for walking.”

Two key things here: Brown is using a wheelchair and this makes him a pedestrian, even if a drunk one. Therefore, he should not have been convicted for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

This case is interesting in many ways, and should tell you a lot about how Minnesota DWI laws have a lot of nuances, or for those less charitably inclined – be unbelievably complicated.

In fact, another scooter DWI case we wrote about in 2009 saw the Court of Appeals affirm a district court’s order finding probable cause for a man charged with a second-degree Minnesota DWI and test refusal who was found lying in the middle of the road and with injuries consistent to a scooter accident. Both these cases involved a scooter, yet one was deemed a motor vehicle and the other was not.

Only time will tell how this case will affect future DWI cases involving non-traditional means of transportation. And with the summer now in full swing, we can probably expect a lot more of this in the coming weeks. As always, it is important to follow safe driving practices and avoid the inconvenience and huge expenses of a Minnesota DWI. But if you do find yourself facing a Minnesota DWI charge don’t hesitate to contact an experienced Minnesota DWI defense attorney to help you build up an effective defense.

Charged with a Minnesota DWI? Call Kans Law Firm, LLC at (952) 835-6314 for a free case assessment.

Tags: Court of Appeals, DWI, gross misdemeanor, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, Minnesota DWI, mobility scooter, wheelchair
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Minnesota Court of Appeals issues Opinion on License Revocations as Aggravating Factor in DUI Cases

Friday, June 19th, 2009

The Minnesota Court of Appeals releases its newly decided opinions each week on Tuesdays at 10 am. This last Tuesday, June 16, 2009, the Appellate Court handed down a decision that could have a huge impact for individuals who have received DUI charges in the last 8 years, as well as for individuals who will receive Minnesota DUI charges until the year 2016.

In its decision in the case of Odegard v. State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Appellate Court concluded that a decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court issued in 2007 that precluded the use in DUI cases of unreviewed license revocations to enhance DUI charges is NOT retroactively applicable. The 2007 Supreme Court case was entitled State v. Wiltgen, and in it, the Minnesota Supreme Court created a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure in Minnesota, holding that any license revocation that had been challenged but not yet decided could not be used in a new Minnesota DUI charge to enhance the new DUI to a higher degree crime.

However, in Odegard, the Appellate Court decided that any convictions for DWI that were final before Wiltgen was decided in 2007 cannot be altered based on the rule pronounced in Wiltgen.

What does this mean for individuals facing DUI charges now? Here’s how the ruling in Odegard works: Lance Odegard had pled guilty in 2003 to first degree DWI. The enhancing factors that made his charge a first degree DWI were two prior DWI convictions, one from 1998 and one from 2001, and a 2002 Implied Consent Driver’s License Revocation. Therefore, with three enhancing factors in the ten year window prior to the 2003 DWI charge, Odegard was charged with first degree DWI. In 2008, after the Minnesota Supreme Court decided Wiltgen, Odegard appealed his first degree DWI, arguing that because one of the enhancing factors used to make his DWI a first degree charge was a license revocation that he had challenged and had not yet received review regarding at the time of his conviction for first degree DWI, like Wiltgen, he was entitled to have the license revocation precluded and the DWI dropped to a second degree.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed with Odegard’s argument. The Appellate Court said the point of the Supreme Court’s rule in Wiltgen was that the use of an unreviewed license revocation to enhance a subsequent DUI was unconstitutional because it denied the defendant of his due process rights, which were to have the revocation that was challenged reviewed and ruled on before it could be used to enhance another, later charge.

But the Appellate Court decided that Wiltgen should not be applied retroactively, and therefore did not apply to Odegard’s case, because his conviction for first degree DWI was final in 2003, before Wiltgen was decided in 2007.

The Appellate Court’s decision in Odegard means that everyone with a DUI charge that was enhanced due to a license revocation, if that revocation was under review at the time of conviction, cannot appeal his or her conviction on the grounds granted in Wiltgen.

Because there is a ten year window in Minnesota for enhancing DUI charges with prior DUI charges and license revocations, the ruling in Odegard means that individuals who received enhanced charges due to challenged license revocations in the last 8 years cannot take advantage of the due process protections in Wiltgen, because their convictions were final at the time Wiltgen was decided, just like Odegard’s was.

Looking to the future, because it takes 10 years for a DUI charge or license revocation to no longer fall in the window of prior convictions which can be used to enhance new charges, individuals facing Minnesota DUI charges will be feeling the effects of the Odegard decision until the year 2016!

You can check out the Appellate decision at: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/OPa082012-0616.pdf

It is important for the Minnesota Driver to understand the significance of prior DWI convictions. If you are charged with a DUI, you should contact a skilled Minnesota/Minneapolis DWI Lawyer. Prior convictions for a DWI can be used against you at sentencing for potentially lengthy jail sentences. If you’ve been arrested or charged with a Minnesota DUI or DWI, call Kans Law Firm, LLC at (952) 835-6314 for a Free Consultation.

Tags: First Degree DWI, implied consent, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, Minnesota DUI, prior license revovation
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Minnesota Felony DWI Conviction On Appeal: MN Court Rules It Can Be Used For Sentencing

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009

In State v. Johnson, an unpublished decision from April 14th, 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a Dakota County District Court’s order allowing the use, for sentencing, of a prior felony DWI conviction that was on appeal when the defendant was charged with a new felony DWI offense. Based on the defendant’s prior felony DWI conviction, he was sentenced to 48 months in prison.

The defendant, in Johnson, committed a new felony DWI charge in 2007, after he was previously convicted of a felony DWI charge in 2006. However, his 2006 conviction was still on appeal when he was charged for the new felony DWI in 2007.

It is important to note that a subsequent felony DWI conviction carries a much greater mandatory sentence for the defendant, if he or she has already been previously convicted of a felony DWI.

The defendant’s attorney argued that the prior DWI conviction should not be considered by the Court when sentencing his client on the new felony DWI, because the prior DWI was still on appeal when he was charged with the new DWI.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s argument and found that the Dakota County District Court properly considered defendant’s 2006 felony DWI conviction at sentencing.

In its opinion, the Court ruled, since the defendant was already convicted of his 2006 felony DWI at the time he was found guilty of his 2007 felony DWI, the conviction could be used by the court at sentencing , even if it was on appeal.

It is important for the Minnesota Driver to understand the significance of prior DWI convictions. If you are charged with a Minnesota DWI, you should contact a skilled Minnesota/Minneapolis DWI Lawyer. Prior convictions for a DWI can be used against you at sentencing for potentially lengthy jail sentences. If you’ve been arrested or charged with a Minnesota DUI or DWI, call Kans Law Firm, LLC at (952) 835-6314 for a Free Consultation.

Tags: Felony DWI, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, prior conviction
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »