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

As we discussed late last year, the Minnesota Court of Appeals interpreted Minnesota’s DWI Forfeiture Statute in a way that defended, rather than undermined, the rights of all vehicle owners. The court came to the common-sense conclusion that the government must return any forfeited vehicle if the driver is never convicted of the crime that gave rise to the forfeiture. The Supreme Court has officially granted review of this decision, meaning it is possible that this case will be overturned. How would this affect future drivers?

Here’s an example: being charged with second degree DWI gives the government the legal authority to seize the vehicle being driven during the offense (regardless of who owns the vehicle). However, being charged with a DWI is not the same as being convicted of a DWI - and smart drivers will file a petition to challenge the vehicle forfeiture. That’s because, under the current state of the law, beating the second degree DWI charge will mean that you should get your vehicle back. If the Supreme Court reverses the appellate court in this case, the situation could be turned on its head.

It’s this question - whether the government can keep a seized vehicle even if you beat the DWI charges - that is about to be considered by the Minnesota Supreme Court. It will be very interesting to see how our Supreme Court decides the future of our faulty DWI forfeiture scheme.

UPDATE (April 3, 2012): DWI Automobile Forfeiture Case Set for Oral Argument.

UPDATE (February 12, 2012): The Minnesota Supreme Court has granted the motions of the MSCJ and MACDL to file an amicus curiae brief.  See Supreme Court Grants Amicus Status in DWI Forfeiture Case.

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

Back in 2008, we strenuously argued in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court about a topic that directly impacted the lives of many of our clients - Minnesota’s practice of ignoring the Constitution and performing warrantless searches in nearly every DWI case. Ultimately, our Supreme Court ruled that a newly minted “single-factor exigency” doctrine meant that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to DWI suspects in Minnesota.

Fast forward to 2012, where the Missouri Supreme Court found otherwise in State v. McNeely. In a concise, but very well-reasoned order, the Court followed prior U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Schmerber v. California and held that, unlike the situation in Minnesota, a warrant is required to search DWI suspects in most cases. 

If you have any interest in Constitutional Law, read this decision. The Missouri Supreme Court did an excellent job of interpreting prior precedent and establishing a solid policy for the future - and did so by upholding the Constitution, rather than watering it down.

This decision impacts Minnesota law in two ways. First, it again emphasizes that our courts are divided on this question, which may convince the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and adopt the logic used in Missouri (which would overturn the current state of the law in Minnesota).

The second key feature of the McNeely decision requires us to look a little deeper. In a footnote, the Court noted that prior Missouri law required consent prior to a blood draw, and that if the driver didn’t consent to a test, then “none shall be given.” That key language was held to require warrants in most Missouri DWI cases - and that language was removed by the Missouri Legislature in 2010. Prosecutors then argued that without the “none shall be given” language, police were now free to perform warrantless tests on DWI suspects. Clearly, the Missouri Supreme Court felt otherwise.

What’s interesting about this is the fact that Minnesota has nearly identical language in its own Implied Consent Statute. Here, just like in Missouri prior to 2010, if a person refuses to consent to a test, then “a test must not be given.” However, Minnesota Courts have consistently refused to interpret this provision, sidestepping the issue in case after case, as if this language didn’t exist.

In Missouri, even prosecutors agreed that this type of language prohibited warrantless tests of blood, breath or urine. In Minnesota, this language has gone ignored - for years. Despite the Minnesota Supreme Court’s creation of the “single-factor exigency” doctrine, this legislative enactment should require warrants in nearly every DWI arrest. Perhaps this most recent decision from the highest court in the “Show Me” state will, in fact, show our state the correct way to protect the rights of DWI suspects.

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

The Minnesota State Bar Association just named the top 25 legal blogs for 2011, and our own Minnesota DWI Defense Blog made the grade.

We started our blog back in April of 2008 as a way to educate lawyers, judges, and everyday citizens about the facts regarding DWI enforcement (as opposed to the many myths and misperceptions). Now, over three and a half years later, our blog is still going strong, and getting better every day.                                                                               

Ramsay Law Firm wants to thank all of you who check our blog regularly, and welcome those of you who are stopping by for the first time. Our goal has always been to be the best defense attorneys in Minnesota, and being informed is always the first step in a solid defense.

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