Minnesota DWI DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorney

Posts Tagged ‘probable cause’

Probable Cause and DWI Arrest Explained

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

Probable cause refers to evidence or facts that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. It is based on factual evidence, not simply on suspicion.

Probable cause to arrest a DWI offender is not the same as arresting a person on reasonable suspicion to detain him/her for the purpose of investigation. When arresting a drunk driver, there are more factors required for the arrest to rise to the level of probable cause. The officer’s initial observation of a driver’s unusual driving behavior is not enough, although it often suffices to establish reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop.

Probable Cause Must Exist To Justify An Arrest

In order for a judge to issue a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, there must be probable cause that a crime took place and that the accused person has committed or was involved in the criminal activity. In case of a warrantless arrest (as is the case with a DWI arrest) the arrest must meet the standard of probable cause so it can be admissible in court.

Sometimes a Minnesota DWI defense Lawyer can establish that the officer that arrested his client for DWI didn’t have probable cause. In such cases, the DWI attorney presents his case to the trial judge, who will weigh the evidence to come up with a decision. The judge requires specific evidence, and not just conclusions from witnesses. A case that lacks specific evidence, more often than not, is dismissed by the trial judge.

How an Arresting Officer Establishes Probable Cause

In general, though not at all times, a police officer establishes probable cause to arrest a driver by:

observing the driver’s impaired driving behavior and establishes a reasonable suspicion of a DWI violation
stopping the vehicle and questioning the driver
administering a standardized field sobriety test (SFST)
administering a preliminary breath test (PBT)

What Happens During a Minnesota DWI Arrest

If reasonable suspicion and probable cause is established by a police officer, a DWI arrest will take place. If you’re arrested for DWI, the arresting officer must advise you of your right for an attorney and read your “implied consent rights” which informs you of your rights to refuse submitting yourself to a chemical test and the consequences resulting from your refusal.

The officer will then request an evidentiary chemical sample from you, whether through breath, urine or blood test to determine your blood alcohol content (BAC). If you refuse a certain type of test, you must be offered another type of test. It’s important to note that refusing a chemical test is a crime in Minnesota.

If you’re unconscious, then the consent is deemed not to have been withdrawn, and the chemical test can be administered. The officer determines whether a sample for the test is taken from your breath, blood or urine.

Minnesota Breath Tests

The two types of breath tests in Minnesota are the Preliminary Breath Test (PBT) and the Evidentiary Breath Test (EBT). The handheld PBT is only used at the scene before a DWI arrest. It’s not as reliable as the EBT and in general its sole results are not admissible in court. The PBT results help officers determine whether they have probable cause to arrest you or not. After the arrest, the EBT is taken at the station where the DataMaster EBT machine is. The results of the EBT are admissible in court. Refusal to submit to an evidentiary breath test is a misdemeanor criminal offense in Minnesota.

Reliability of Breath Tests

The results of the evidentiary breath test are used as evidence to prove your guilt. It’s important to know, however, that the results of the DWI breath test are not always perfect. There are certain human variables which may affect the results of the test such as diseases and the individual’s bodily compositions. The machine itself is also prone to maintenance and operator errors. This means that the machine can make you appear guilty of DWI even when you have not taken alcohol beverage or prohibited drugs. It can even make you appear innocent even if you are truly impaired. As a result of this, sometimes results of the breath tests can be challenged in court.

Challenging a DWI Arrest

To establish probable cause of a DWI arrest, there are many factors to consider from the time the vehicle is spotted (a car weaving without crossing a line can’t be stopped in Minnesota), up to the filing of the DWI case. There are sometimes flaws during the prosecutor’s presentation of the case in court. If the prosecutor is not able to establish a probable cause for a DWI arrest, the DWI charge can be dismissed. There are many flaws and mistakes that an experienced Minnesota DUI Lawyer is able to effectively challenge.

What to Do If You’re Arrested

If you or a loved one happens to be charged with a DUI related offense, you can greatly better your situation with the immediate help of an experienced DWI attorney. Douglas T. Kans has the know-how and ability to provide you with the best strategy in defense of your case. You can contact us at (952) 835-6314 for a free case review.

Tags: dwi arrest standardized field sobriety test, dwi offender, field, preliminary breath test, probable cause, reasonable suspicion
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Probable Cause Existed For DWI Arrest: The Case Of The Scooter

Thursday, April 16th, 2009

Minnesota DWI law defines a “motor vehicle” as:

“Every motor 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.”

Therefore, as summer approaches here in the beautiful State of Minnesota, and most of us increase our outdoor recreational activities, it is important for the Minnesota Driver to be aware of the above definition of a motor vehicle with regard to Minnesota’s DWI laws. The law defines a “motor vehicle” as any vehicle that is “self-propelled” or propelled by electric power. So, for all the golfers out there, and there are many in this State, please be advised that a golf cart does indeed fit the above criteria. This would also apply to mopeds, snow-mobiles, ATV’s, and, as the case below describes, Scooters!

In an unpublished opinion by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on April 7th, 2009 entitled State v. Stevens, The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s previous order finding that probable existed to believe a man, thought to have driven a motor- scooter, was in violation of Minnesota’s DWI Laws.

In Stevens, the police responded to the scene of an accident. At the scene, the police discovered a man lying in the middle of the road with injuries consistent with a motor-scooter accident. However, the police were unable to locate a scooter at the scene. Several people at the scene told the police that there was a red scooter lying next to the man, but it had been removed from the scene, before the police arrived, by another individual.

The officers eventually questioned the other individual, who indicated to the police, that it was his scooter and the defendant had driven off on it earlier in the evening without the man’s permission. The defendant was questioned by the police later that evening, at the hospital where he was being treated for his injuries, and admitted to conuming four to six glasses of “straight” whiskey earlier in the evening.

Based on this information, the police officer invoked the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory and asked the defendant to submit to a blood test. The defendant ultimately refused to submit to testing and was charged with Second Degree DWI/Refusal.

The defendant’s attorney argued that the police officer did not have probable cause to believe the defendant was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the police officer lacked the probable cause necessarry to invoke the implied consent law.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled, considering the “totality of the circumstances”, the officer did have probable cause to believe the defendant was indeed operating or in physical control of a “motor vehicle” under the influence of alcohol.

Tags: implied consent, Minnesota DWI, motor boats, motor vehicle, off-road recreational, probable cause
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »