Minnesota DWI Defense Blog : Roseville DUI Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Ramsay Law Firm : Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota

Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice

2013 Annual DWI Defense CLE – June 14, 2013

Recognized as the top DWI CLE in Minnesota

Featuring Prominent Local and Nationally Recognized DWI Attorneys

*** Recently Added *** Panel Discussion on Missouri v. McNeely

Every Minnesota DWI attorney should attend this seminar! Attendees will receive McNeely v. Missouri motions, memoranda and other documents. All materials will be provided on CD.

8:30 am                        Registration and Welcome

9:00-9:45 am                 View From The Appellate Bench:

The Honorable R.A. (Jim) Randall

9:45-10:30 am               Legislative and Case Law Update:

Douglas Hazelton

10:30-10:45 am            Break

10:45 am                      Enhancing DWI Penalties with Prior Implied Consent Revocations:

Dave Risk

11:15 am                      Prescription Drug DWIs and Revocations:

Jeff Sheridan

NOON                           Lunch (Included)

1:00-1:30 pm                 What Not to Do and How Not To Do It:

Samuel McCloud

1:30-2:30 pm                 Representing the Mentally Ill DWI Defendant:

Anna McLafferty (National Alliance on Mental Illness of Minnesota)

2:30-2:45 pm                 Break

2:45-3:30 pm                 McNeely – Vindication and Application of Netland, Shriner and Wiseman:

Panel Discussion by Lead Attorneys:

Chuck Ramsay, Jeffrey Ring, Jeff Sheridan

3:30-4:30 pm                 Standardized Field Sobriety Testing – Problems and Procedures:

Rebecca Rhoda Fisher, Sharon R. Osborn, Pamela King

4:30 pm                        Adjourn for Social Hour

No prosecutors will be permitted. Click here for the flyer, more information and registration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nobody can deny the tremendous impact the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Missouri v. McNeely will have on how we handle Minnesota DWIs in the future. The McNeely decision breathed some much needed life into what many perceived as an ailing and weary Fourth Amendment - an Amendment that, together with the First Amendment, forms the absolute bedrock of a free society.

We've been preparing for years in the hopes that our Courts - as stewards of the Constitution - would interpret the Fourth Amendment in a way that makes sure that it actually does apply to DWI arrests. And now they have.

But change is difficult, even when it is staring you in the face. As every state in the union comes to terms with the new legal landscape post-McNeely, Minnesota is facing a particularly difficult upheaval, much more than most other states. This is due to two unique aspects of Minnesota law - the criminalization of test refusal (coerced consent) and the codification of suppression (I'll explain that in a minute).

First, consent: The vast majority of states didn't take the extreme step of outright criminalizing test refusal; Minnesota is in the minority of jurisdictions that makes it a crime to withhold your consent to a warrantless search. So, many states can safely wade through their pending and future DWI cases relying on the fact that most people will say "yes" when asked to submit to a blood, breath or urine test, and their consent eliminates the need to obtain a warrant.

But that's not Minnesota - in Minnesota, "yes" comes at the barrel of a gun, and can hardly be considered to be true consent. When saying "no" is a crime, it will always be nearly impossible for the government to persuasively argue that anyone is actually consenting to submit to a test.

Second, suppression: the courts have had a long-standing rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in court, referred to as the "exclusionary rule." There are a lot of policy reasons behind this rule, but it is sufficient to point out that if this illegally obtained evidence wasn't suppressed, we could just as well delete the entire Fourth Amendment and call it the "Bill of Guidelines" instead of the Bill of Rights.

Now, the federal courts have recently developed a new doctrine dealing with suppression, calling it the "good faith" exception to the warrant requirement. Again, it suffices to say that if an officer conducts a search that he believes to be constitutional, but that law is later overruled, this "good faith" exception basically means that even though the search was illegal, the evidence is still admissible in court.

Again, in many other states this means that all of the DWI cases put on hold pending McNeely didn't gain much from that decision. Their searches may have been illegal (unless they were consented to), but the evidence comes before the jury anyway, so it's a pretty hollow victory.

But Minnesota is different - where our Legislature made the questionable decision of criminalizing the act of not consenting to a warrantless search, they also made the inspired decision to pass a specific law that mandates the suppression of evidence for any illegal search. Minnesota Statute 626.21 says in no uncertain terms that illegal searches = suppressed evidence. Our own Minnesota Supreme Court has also repeatedly rejected the need for such a rule.

So Minnesota is in a pickle (to be fair, it's a pickle that could have easily been avoided): prosecutors can't say with a straight face that everyone has been consenting to their blood, breath and urine tests. The best they can say is that drivers keep saying "yes" after being properly threatened. And then, prosecutors have no "good faith" exception to fall back on, meaning if they want to maintain their DWI cases against our clients, they are going to have to prove that there simply wasn't enough time to get a warrant before our client's slipped below the legal limit. Considering the fact that we're still not properly training our officers on the simple task of obtaining a telephonic warrant, I don't see that argument being very successful.

There will be some significant growing pains in Minnesota as a result of the McNeely decision. There is a good chance many DWIs will be thrown out of court. But in the end, everyone will have a renewed respect for the Fourth Amendment; courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, the legislature, and the general public. And that, too, makes us all safer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BREAKING NEWS: 

TODAY the United State Supreme Court vacated a Minnesota DWI Urine test case and remanded back to Minnesota. 

This means that Urine & Breath test cases also are affected by the McNeely decision. 

This marks the end of most of Minnesota's DWI statute.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Our own Charles Ramsay, known and respected across the country for his legal knowledge, appeared on WCCO Channel 4 News last night to provide his analysis of the recent Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely.

While prosecutors are publicly downplaying the impact of the decision, Ramsay explained how this broad reaching decision will affect not only blood test cases, but also breath and urine cases, and that law enforcement agents will need to quickly change their current procedures or risk having all test results thrown out of court.

You can watch the video of his interview below:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Charles Ramsay appeared on KSTP Eyewitness 5 News last night to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Missouri v. McNeely and provide his experienced analysis.

The article associated with the interview does a good job of laying out the basic facts of the McNeely case, as well as discussing the legal holding in the case. We'd suggest reading it.

Make no mistake - this decision will have a tremendous impact on all future DWI cases. This case marks an important shift towards a stricter interpretation of our Constitution's Fourth Amendment, upholding personal privacy rights against the steady onslaught of decisions that have steadily eroded our constitutional protections in the name of "efficiency."

A healthy respect for everyone's privacy does nothing to prevent law enforcement from doing their jobs - instead, it ensures that fewer innocent people will be subjected to intrusive searches on the whim of police officers. Hundreds of DWIs may be thrown out of court as a result of this decision, but in the long term, the legal system will be further strengthened and we will see less examples of "rogue" cops who would like to act with as little judicial oversight as possible.

Expect much more litigation in the aftermath of the McNeely decision, as courts nationwide (including Minnesota) come to terms with exactly how far-reaching the impact of this decision actually is.

Here's the video:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The manner in which the police enforce Minnesota's DWI laws was fundamentally changed this morning, when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a landmark decision in the case of Missouri v. McNeely (link leads to a copy of the opinion).

It's a complicated decision broken down into four parts (some parts commanding a majority, some not), a concurrence, and a dissent. It will take time to fully digest exactly how many ways this decision will affect the future of Minnesota DWI law enforcement, but one thing is very clear.

The Supreme Court just overturned the decision in State v. Netland, a case we brought before the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2009. As a direct result of the McNeely decision, there is no longer a "single factor exigency" doctrine to speak of, meaning that law enforcement around the state (and the nation) will have to at least consider obtaining a search warrant prior to administering a chemical test for intoxication.

This will have a major impact on law enforcement practices going forward, but will have a much bigger effect on the many cases currently in the court system. We've been positioning our client's cases for months in anticipation of this decision, and plan to take full advantage of this fundamental change in the case law to benefit our clients.

The importance of this decision cannot be understated. Not only does the McNeely decision eliminate the judicially-constructed doctrine of "single factor exigency" once and for all (and add renewed strength to the privacy protections that are the cornerstone of the Fourth Amendment) but it opens a whole new can of worms in Minnesota. For starters, there is a good chance that Minnesota's test refusal law is no longer constitutional, and will have to be discarded.

We'll bring you more information once we've had a chance to fully digest the impact of this decision, but in the meantime, you may want to read some of our previous blogs leading up to today's opinion:

Agents of the Constitution: The "Show Me" State Protects the Fourth Amendment

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if DWI Laws Are Unconstitutional

Minnesota's DWI Test Refusal Law in Review: Why the Crime of Test Refusal is Currently Considered Constitutional

The Future of Minnesota's DWI Law: How the McNeely Decision Will Affect DWI Arrests Here At Home

And again, if you'd like to read the actual language of the decision in Missouri v. McNeely, you can find it here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you're free over the lunch hour, it might be a good idea to tune in to our live Webcast from 12:00 - 1:30. It's part of the Criminal Law Series provided by the good folks at Minnesota CLE, where me and Chuck will be covering the portion of Minnesota's DWI Deskbook dealing with the heart and soul of all DWI cases - Chemical Testing.

You'll not only learn a lot about the science behind DWI tests (and ways to counter those same tests) but Minnesota CLE has applied to the Minnesota State Board of CLE for 1.5 standard CLE credits and 1.5 criminal law specialist credits.

Following along with the entire DWI Deskbook Webcast Series (including the portion covered today by me and Chuck) is good for both new attorneys and seasoned ones, and as the science behind DWI testing is always evolving, our presentation today is a great way to make sure you're on top of all the latest developments. We hope to have you join us!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Minnesota Lawyer is reporting that Governor Dayton has selected David Lillehaug as the newest member of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Soon-to-be Justice Lillehaug will replace Justice Paul H. Anderson, slated to retire in May.

This appointment comes on the heels of Governor Dayton's recent appointment of Justice Wilhelmina M. Wright last September, and marks his second appointment to the state's highest court. 

We'd simply like to take this moment to join the rest of the legal community in congratulating Mr. Lillehaug while looking forward to arguing before him in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last year the St. Paul Crime Lab was shut down after Minnesota defense attorneys Christine Funk and Lori Traub exposed the lab’s shoddy practices and procedures when dealing with crucial evidence. At the time, the lab was supervised by a poorly trained St. Paul Police Sergeant. 

Following the lab’s closing, the city hired two independent consultants to review the lab’s work and make recommendations to improve the lab. The consultants found errors in almost every area of the lab's work. (Here are their crime lab reports).

Following the recommendations of two independent consultants, the city created a new position of “Forensic Lab Manager” to be filled by an independent, properly-trained scientist. The use of an independent scientist is the crucial point – hiring such a person recognizes the importance of crime labs’ independence from police and prosecution, something the scientific community has stressed for years (for example, see recommendation #4 of the National Academy of Sciences Report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (2009).

Professor Harris, author of Failed Evidence: Why Law Enforcement Resists Science (NYU Press, 2012), explains the rationale behind the recommendation for independent laboratories in The Truth About Forensic Science:

The idea couldn’t be clearer: in order that we have better, science-based forensic methods and results, and especially to maximize independence from law enforcement, all forensic labs had to be removed from all law enforcement agencies or prosecutors’ offices. As the report explained, “The best science is conducted in a scientific setting as opposed to a law enforcement setting. Because forensic scientists often are driven in their work by a need to answer a particular question related to the issues of a particular case, they sometimes face pressure to sacrifice appropriate methodology for the sake of expediency.”

Although the city was eventually forced to acknowledge the problems with their lab, and seem to be making a good faith effort to bring the lab up to professional standards, the police union has thrown up a barrier to the new position. And surprisingly, the union makes no secret about its reason for the obstruction: the union objects purely because they want day-to-day control of the lab and additional jobs for cops. That’s how you get quotes like the following mind-bender: “Sworn officers should not be reporting to civilians.”

We’ve seen the ramifications of cop-run labs – it took the painstaking work of numerous defense attorneys countless hours to expose the St. Paul Crime lab . . . which is just one example out of many. It is time for the police to put the best interests of the public first. As Professor Harris writes,

Personally, I believe in unions. I feel that they have been a key factor in generating middle class prosperity in the U.S. since the early 20th century.   But this seems like simple obstruction of a change needed to benefit the public, just for the gain of a few.

With the union refusing to allow officers to report to civilians, it is clear the police will continue to engage in a turf war, regardless of how it affects public safety.

As one defense attorney who helped expose the shoddy lab work said, “I think the sergeant did answer to the civilians -- last July.”

We agree.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link