Court Opinion

ID: 9705681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:16:13.995865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:13.547370
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result that limits the holding to the issue of “free” discovery.
At oral argument, both defense counsel and the attorney for the state indicated that the panel could reach the issues raised under Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 5c(b)(3), (d) (1998). Those issues include discovery mandated on the driver, the disclosure of which can be incriminating and later used against the driver in a criminal case. Another issue is the severe limitation on the discovery available to the driver and his attorney. Both of these issues are far reaching and are issues artificially created by the recent amendments to the driving while under the influence and implied consent laws. See 1997 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch. 2 (adopting omnibus DWI bill that included amendments to Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 5c).
It is important that those issues are raised, and more importantly, that they be addressed head on. But I agree with the majority that, with the procedural posture of this case, it is appropriate to limit the holding to the single issue of reimbursement for reasonable discovery costs. This then leaves open for a later day, without prejudice, all the self-incrimination, limitation on discovery, and the separation of power issues that are implicated in this case.