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

It is becoming harder and harder for an attorney - any attorney - to successfully represent clients as a “general practitioner.” Some areas of law, especially criminal law, simply demand that quality attorneys specialize in their practice in order to be successful and effective.

We continue to see the problems that occur when an otherwise competent attorney chooses to dabble in criminal defense work. A client will hire the “family attorney” or a general practitioner to represent them in their criminal case, only to find out that this otherwise great attorney did a terrible job protecting their interests.

The Supreme Court recently issued a decision highlighting these problems. In Padilla v. Kentucky, the Court recognized that every criminal defense attorney also needs to understand the intricate interplay between the criminal law and other areas (civil law, immigration law, and family law to name a few), or else their clients will simply be “left to the mercies of incompetent counsel.”

That’s why we focus solely on criminal defense; it’s the only way to ensure that we can provide the best possible representation for our clients. If you’re charged with a crime, you don’t just need an attorney who understands the rules of evidence or can name every judge in the county; you need an attorney who knows how your case will affect your driver’s license, your job, or your immigration status. You need an attorney who knows if a conviction will result in enhanced penalties, restriction on your right to own a firearm, the need to register with the state, or even your deportation. Without a fully qualified and experienced defense attorney, you run the terrible risk of not only being punished far more severely than you deserve, but of being punished far more severely – and in more ways – than you even expected.

At Ramsay Law Firm, we defend those who have been accused of committing a crime. We practice no other area of law. We’ve taken an oath to zealously represent our clients, and we take that oath very seriously. That means making sure that we understand all of the “collateral consequences” that go along with a criminal charge or a criminal conviction. Because we are on the cutting edge of criminal defense, we’re in the best position to advise our clients of all their options, to fully litigate all their defenses . . . and make sure that we get the best results possible.

If you’ve been charged with a crime, contact Ramsay Law Firm. We’re fully committed to defending our clients as completely as is humanly possible - it’s how we get results.

Please view our website at Ramsay Results

Please follow us on Facebook at Ramsay Results – Facebook

Please follow Mr. Ramsay via Twitter

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

            Minnesota uses three types of chemical test to investigate DWI cases. There are breath tests on the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. Then Minnesota has its unique take on urine testing. The third type of test is the blood test; a type of test used in nearly every state for DWI prosecutions and considered the “gold standard” with respect to value as evidence.

            Despite the massive problems with the Intoxilyzer, and the overwhelming criticism of its urine testing regime, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill and signed into law by Governor Pawlenty, seriously undermining its last, best chance at equitably enforcing our DWI laws. Starting July 1, 2010, it appears that almost anyone a police officer chooses can draw a driver’s blood - not just registered nurses, EMTs, and the other specifically listed persons currently authorized by statute.  The law protects them from civil suit if they were to cause infection or other injury.

            This is troubling for numerous reasons, the least of which is the fact that blood draws, if improperly performed, can be painful, traumatic, and can transfer infectious diseases. Moreover, the current law is likely unconstitutional.

            Currently, blood tests for evidentiary purposes are deemed constitutional - but not by much. In the Supreme Court case that first authorized these types of blood draws, the Court clearly explained that such a test is only reasonable where it is “taken by a physician in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices. We are thus not presented with the serious questions that would arise is a search . . . were made by other than medical personnel or in other than a medical environment.”

            Police officers with limited training have routinely drawn blood in Cottage Grove, Woodbury and a few other jurisdictions. We expect that to expand.  Soon, that Supreme Court’s warning 45 years ago will be ignored, at least in Minnesota. The Legislature just legalized a practice that has opened the door to roadside blood tests by officers. Instead of blood drawn “in a hospital environment according to accepted medical practices,” we fully expect cops to routinely suck drivers’ blood on the hood of a filthy squad car at the side of the road.  Rest assured, we plan on fighting this law at the first available opportunity.

            At Ramsay Results, part of our job is to keep current on the latest changes in the law, so that we can effectively represent our clients. If you’re arrested for a DWI - especially if the arrest involves a blood test - contact Ramsay Law Firm immediately.

Please view our website at Ramsay Results

Please follow us on Facebook at Ramsay Results – Facebook

Please follow Mr. Ramsay via Twitter

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