Minnesota DUI

Posts Tagged ‘Minnesota DUI’

Minnesota DWI Charges: A Brief Summary

Friday, January 15th, 2010

I’ve discussed the various levels or degrees of DWI charges in Minnesota on our website or previous blog postings in the past, but one of the most common questions we receive from prospective clients is to explain the different levels of DUI offenses. So, I figured a quick review would be helpful.

There are four degrees of DWI or DUI offense in Minnesota:

First Degree (Felony) DWI;
Second Degree (Gross Misdemeanor) DWI;
Third Degree (Gross Misdemeanor) DWI: and
Fourth Degree (Misdemeanor) DWI.

The degree or level of DWI offense an individual is charged with depends on the presence of what is called “aggravating factors’. The more aggravating factors that exist at the time of an individuals arrest, then the more serious the level of DWI charge.

The aggravating factors as acknowledged by Minnesota Statute include:

A qualified prior impaired driving incident within 10 years of the current DWI charge or incident;
Having a blood alcohol concentration of .20 or more at the time of driving or as measured within two hours of the time of offense;
Having a child under the age of 16 in the motor vehicle at the time of driving or the offense if the child is more than 36 months younger than the offender.

A driver will be charged with a fourth-degree DWI, if none of the above aggravating factors are present at the time of the offense. A driver will be charged with third-degree DWI, if there is at least one aggravating factor present at the time of the offense. A driver will be charged with a second-degree DWI, if there is at least two aggravating factors present at the time of the offense. With regard to felony first-degree DWI, a driver must have at least three qualified prior impaired driving incidents within ten years immediately preceding the current offense or was previously convicted of a felony DWI in Minnesota. Therefore, other than having a prior felony DWI conviction, the only aggravating factor that is relevant to enhancing a new offense to a felony level DUI is if the individual has a prior DWI conviction or a prior DUI related license revocation within the last ten years.

Lastly, it is important to note that each and every degree or level of DWI offense in Minnesota carries with it certain complexities. Such things as mandatory jail or prison sentences, license plate impoundment, mandatory high bail amounts and motor vehicle forfeitures can exist for various degrees of DWI offenses. Therefore, I strongly advise that an individual charged with any level of DUI offense seek the assistance or advice of a highly-skilled Minnesota DWI Lawyer.

Tags: Felony DUI, Felony DWI, First Degree DUI, First Degree DWI, Fourth Degree DUI, Fourth Degree DWI, Gross Misdemeanor DUI, Gross Misdemeanor DWI, Minnesota DUI, Minnesota DWI, Misdemeanor DUI, Misdemeanor DWI, Second Degree DUI, Second Degree DWI, Third Degree DUI, Third Degree DWI
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Minnesota DWI Vehicle Forfeiture: MN Supreme Court Issues New Ruling

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Statute and Joint Vehicle Ownership

Two weeks ago, on December 17, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an opinion that specifically and dramatically addressed the issue of joint vehicle ownership and forfeiture.

The appellate case was entitled, “David Lee Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe,” and the basic facts were as follows: Mr. Laase and his wife owned a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe. Both their names were on the title, as many married couples’ names both appear on the titles to their vehicles. Ms. Laase was driving the Tahoe on May 16, 2006, when she met up with her husband at their golf club. Mr. Laase left the club in the early evening, and Ms. Laase stayed for an evening game. The next time he heard from her was at 1 o’clock the next morning, as she’d been arrested for DWI.

Mr. Laase asserted the innocent owner defense, as per Minnesota Statute section 169A.63 subd. 7(d) (2008), which states, “A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under this section if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law or that the owner took reasonable steps to prevent the use of the vehicle by the offender.”

Mr. Laase won the forfeiture challenge in district court, arguing that because he was an owner of the vehicle and he had no knowledge – either actual or constructive – that the Tahoe was going to be used in the commission of a DWI, the Tahoe should not be subject to forfeiture and he should receive the vehicle back because he was an owner of the vehicle and he was innocent. The Minnesota Court of Appeals also agreed with Mr. Laase, after the County appealed the district court’s ruling. The County next appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, arguing that because BOTH owners of the vehicle were not innocent, the innocent owner’s defense shouldn’t apply to ANY owner of the vehicle.

The Minnesota Supreme Court disagreed with both the district court and the Appellate Court and adopted the County’s argument. Supreme Court stated in its December 17 opinion that although the statute is written in the singular – owner – the legislature actually meant for that singular term to include the plural version of the term as well.

In short, that by drafting the law using the word “owner”, the legislature meant for the law to be read, “owner or owners.” The opinion includes a long discussion of canons of interpretation and the differences between “textual canons,” “extrinsic source canons,” and “substantive policy canons.” The result is that the Minnesota Supreme Court found that because each owner’s interest in the vehicle is an interest in the whole vehicle, any owner’s action that triggers forfeiture means the whole vehicle is subject to forfeiture.

The Minnesota Supreme Court did leave the door open for future defenses, even as they closed the door for the innocent owner statute in cases like the Lasses’. The Court concluded its opinion by stating that the outcome might be different in a case in which the vehicle in question is jointly owned, but is exclusively used by the owner not responsible for the forfeiture (see footnote 5 of the opinion), or in cases in which a challenge is made regarding the innocent owner’s constitutional rights (see footnote 11).

Finally, the Minnesota Supreme Court clearly stated in both the majority opinion and in Justice Barry Anderson’s concurring opinion that it is the legislature’s job to re-write statutes to ensure greater protection for private property and that as “the wisdom of vesting the right to possession of a forfeited vehicle in the law enforcement agency responsible for the arrest of the defendant and the forfeiture of a defendant’s vehicle is not immediately evident,” perhaps those questions should be put to the legislature in the near future.

If you or someone you know has been arrested for a DWI or DUI in Minnesota or has had their motor vehicle forfeited as the result of a DWI arrest, call Attorney Douglas T. Kans at 952-835-6314 or 1800-972-6060 for a free consultation.

Tags: Joint Owner, Minnesota DUI, Minnesota DWI, Motor Vehicle Forfeiture, Owner
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 »