Source: https://minnesotadwilawyer.blogspot.com/2012/
Timestamp: 2019-05-20 23:33:09
Document Index: 30933600

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169', '§ 169']

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blog: 2012
The Minnesota DWI Case of the Week is the Minnesota Supreme Court Case of Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, (decided October 2, 2012) which stands for the proposition that in order to forfeit a vehicle pursuant to the Minnesota DWI forfeiture statute, the owner of the vehicle must first be convicted of the designated DWI criminal offense.
It was the Defendant's position that since he had not been convicted of a designated forfeiture offense (i.e. Second Degree DWI) he was entitled to the vehicle's return. The State, however, argued that although a conviction of a designated offense creates a presumption of judicial forfeiture, such a conviction is not required under the statute. Instead, the State claimed that section 169A.63, subdivision 9(f), prohibits forfeiture only if the driver is not convicted of any charge.
The Minnesota Supreme Court (fortunately) rejected the State's position and affirmed the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling which had ordered the return of the vehicle. The Minnesota Supreme Court in its ruling noted:
"It is undisputed that respondent made a timely demand for a judicial determination under subdivision 8(f). Thus, the administrative proceeding under subdivision 8 was converted into a judicial proceeding under subdivision 9, and subdivision 9 governs the judicial forfeiture proceeding.
Subdivision 9(f) provides that when forfeiture is based on the commission of a designated offense and the person charged with the designated offense appears in court as required and is not convicted of the offense, the court shall order the property returned to the person legally entitled to it upon that person’s compliance with the redemption requirements of section 169A.42. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 9(f). Under subdivision 9(f), when a person charged with a designated offense appears in court and is not convicted of the designated offense, “the court shall order the property returned to the person legally entitled to it” provided that the redemption requirements of section 169A.42 are satisfied. The word “shall” has been interpreted as mandatory."
"It is certainly true that the burden of proof imposed upon the State for vehicle forfeiture is higher for a judicial forfeiture than for an administrative forfeiture. But it is within the province of the Legislature to provide for different standards for vehicle forfeiture in administrative and judicial proceedings. An administrative forfeiture under subdivision 8 requires only a showing that the vehicle was “used to commit a designated offense or used in conduct resulting in a designated license revocation . . . .” In contrast, judicial forfeiture under subdivision 9(f) provides that when the person charged with the designated offense “appears in court as required and is not convicted of the offense, the court shall order the property returned”.
The Minnesota Supreme Court in Patino therefore held that since the defendant had not been convicted of the designated forfeiture offense, he was entitled to the return of the vehicle.
Posted by F.T. Sessoms at 11:29 AM No comments:
Labels: Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Blogs, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minnesota DUI Vehicle Forfeiture, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DWI Lawyer
The Minnesota DWI Case of the week is the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision of State v. Hammann, (Unpublished, decided August 1, 2012) which stands for the proposition that it's not a refusal to submit to alcohol testing if you don't ask the right question.
In Hammann, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and was taken to the Minnetonka Police Department. He was read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory and was asked to submit to a urine test. The Defendant asked the officers what types of tests the department offered, and an officer responded, "We're gonna offer you urine or blood...If you won't do urine we're gonna ask you for blood and that's it." Mr. Hammann then repeatedly asked the officers about various aspects of the implied-consent process and unsuccessfully tried multiple time to call his brother and his attorney.
Approximately 48 minutes after the process began, an officer asked Mr. Hammann multiple times within the course of one minute whether he would take a urine test, and Hammann never directly responded. The officer then stated, "Jerald I will consider you to have refused the test at this point". The Defendant immediately responded, "I am totally willing to take whatever test is appropriate. " But the officer deemed the Defendant to have refused the test.
The Defendant was convicted of 3rd Degree Refusal to Submit to Testing but on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the conviction noting:
“Any person who drives . . . a motor vehicle within this state . . . consents . . . to a chemical test of that person’s blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol,” and “[i]t is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test of the person’s blood, breath, or urine.” Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 2, 169A.51, subd. 1(a) (2010)."
"The peace officer who requires a test pursuant to this section may direct whether the test is of blood, breath, or urine. Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test only if an alternative test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if an alternative test was offered.
Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 3 (2010) (emphasis added)."
The plain language of the statute only allows action to be taken against a person if that person refuses to take a blood or urine test and an “alternative test was offered.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 3. Here, an officer at the beginning of the implied-consent process told appellant: “If you won’t do urine we’re gonna ask you blood and that’s it.” But that statement is not an offer for alternative testing. In the cases where this court has considered a person to have refused chemical testing, the facts suggest that an officer gave the person the option of choosing a blood or urine test. See State v. Ferrier, 792 N.W.2d 98, 100 (Minn. App. 2010) (“[Officer] then asked appellant if she would take a blood or urine test, and appellant chose to take a urine test.”), review denied (Mar. 15, 2011); Busch v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 614 N.W.2d 256, 257 (Minn. App. 2000) (“[Officer] then asked Busch if he would take a blood, urine, or breath test, but Busch refused to reply.”).
The Minnesota Court of Appeals in Hammann then held that because the Defendant was not offered an alternative test as required by statute, his test refusal conviction must be reversed.
Moral of the Story: If they don't ask, it's not a crime to not tell.
Posted by F.T. Sessoms at 11:28 AM No comments:
Labels: Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Blogs, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DWI Lawyer, Test Refusal
The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Tanksley, (Decided February 8, 2012) a Minnesota Supreme Court Case which stands for the proposition that, if you have been arrested for a DWI, you should always, always choose a blood test instead of a urine test.
So even though a first-void urine test result has no support whatsoever in the scientific community, the BCA has approved of its use and in Tanksley the Minnesota Supreme Court approved of the practice.
The District Court in Tanksley, held that the State does not have to prove that the defendant's urine alcohol level accurately reflected his blood alcohol level and therefore the "pooling effect" of a first-void sample is irrelevant. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the District Court stating:
"The alcohol-concentration offense requires the State to prove two elements. First, the State must establish that the defendant drove, operated, or physically controlled a motor vehicle within the State of Minnesota. Second, the State must prove that the defendant's alcohol concentration was .08 or more at the time, or within 2 hours of the time, the defendant drove, operated, or physically controlled the motor vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd.1(5). Minnesota Statutes § 169A.03, subd. 2 (2010), in turn, defines 'alcohol concentration' as: '(1) the number of grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; (2) the number of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath; or (3) the number of grams of alcohol per 67 milliliters of urine.'"
"Whether first-void urine results correlate with blood alcohol concentration is not relelvant to whether the State has proven the two elements of the alcohol-concentration offense. Section 169A.20, subdivision 1(5), requires proof of 'alcohol concentration,' but under the statute, 'alcohol concentration' can be proven by the number of grams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood, in 210 liters of breath, or in 67 milliliters of urine. Minn. Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 2. The statute thus provided three methods for proving the requisite alcohol concentration, and does not express a preference for one method over another. * * *"
"Put another way, even if we were to assume that the correlation between first-void urine test results and blood alcohol concentration is weak, as Tanksley argues, evidence of that fact would have not effect on the determination of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tanksley's urine alcohol concentration was at or above .08 grams per 67 milliliters of urine within 2 hours of driving, operating, or physically controlling a motor vehicle. Therefore, the district court was not required to hold a [hearing] to decide the merit of Tanksley's criticism because a lack of correlation to blood alcohol concentration was not relevant to the alcohol-concentration offense."
The problem with the Supreme Court's opinion is that it ignores what the Minnesota DWI Statutes are designed to punish, namely drunk drivers. The urine and breath alcohol ratios contained in the statute are designed to match the blood alcohol ratio of grams of alcohol per milliliters of blood. A person with a pooled urine alcohol level of .12 could easily be as sober as a person with a blood alcohol level of .04. But the urine-alcohol defendant is punished while the blood-alcohol defendant would go free.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Never submit to a urine test. Always exercise your right to have a blood test done instead. At least the blood test will be accurate and not overstate your alcohol concentration level.
Labels: Case of the Week, Minneapolis DUI Attorney, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DWI Lawyer, Urine Testing