Minnesota DWI Lawyer & Attorney : Minneapolis DWI Defense Law Firm : Brown Law Offices : St. Paul, Twin Cities MN

DWI charges in Minnesota range from misdemeanors to felony-level offenses. The severity of the offense is determined by the number of “aggravating factors” that might be present for a particular drunk driving incident.

Aggravating factors in Minnesota include: (1) a qualified prior “impaired driving incident” within the preceding 10 years; (2) an alcohol concentration of .20 or greater at the time of the offense; or (3) the presence of a child under age 16 in the vehicle (if more than three years younger than the offender). Prior impaired driving incidents include prior convictions and losses of a driver's license due to an implied consent revocation.

If there are no aggravating factors present when the DUI is committed, it will be charged as a fourth-degree misdemeanor DWI. The maximum penalty is a $1000 fine and 90 days of incarceration. If one aggravating factor is present, it will be charged as a third-degree misdemeanor DWI. The maximum penalty is a $3000 fine and a one year in jail. If two aggravating factors are present at the time of the offense, it will be charged as a gross misdemeanor second-degree DWI with the same maximum penalties as a third-degree DWI. Finally, if three or more factors are present, a felony first-degree DWI will be charged. The maximum penalty is seven years of incarceration and a $14,000 fine.

Charged with drunk driving? We can help. The sooner you involve an experienced defense attorney, the better able we will be to gather evidence and address other important elements of your case. Call our Minnesota DWI lawyers now at 612.789.2100 or feel free to contact us through our online consultation form.

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

Minnesota has over 10,000 lakes to enjoy and a staggering boat ownership ratio, making it easy to comprehend why so many Minnesotans face BWI charges. If an individual operates a boat(including personal watercraft), with an alcohol concentration above .08 they may be charged with boating while intoxicated under Minnesota law.

First time BWI offenders (a misdemeanor) face up to 90 days of incarceration, a $1,000 fine and the loss of the ability to operate a boat for 90 "boating season" days upon conviction. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is responsible for issuing the relevant revocation.

If an "aggravating factor" is involved, the BWI charge becomes a gross misdemeanor and, in the most serious of cases, a felony may result. These aggravating factors include:

• Operating a boat with a blood alcohol concentration of .20 or more;
• A prior conviction for DWI or test refusal in the 10 years leading up to; or
• A passenger under age 16 on the boat or watercraft at the time of the offense.

If an individual accused of BWI has no qualified prior impaired driving incidents, they are subject only to the loss of operating privileges for their boat for the relevant period of suspension. Their license to operate an automobile remains in tact. However, any person arrested for BWI and who has a qualified prior impaired driving incident on record is subject to the same administrative sanctions and criminal penalties as the person would be if arrested while driving a regular motor vehicle. In other words, their license to operate a motor vehicle may be suspended as well.

Facing BWI charges? We know you have many unanswered questions. The sooner you involve an experienced BWI attorney, the better able we will be to gather evidence and address other important elements of your case. Call our Minnesota BWI defense firm now at 763.323.6555 or feel free to contact us through our online consultation form.

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

In an unpublished decision entitled State v. Johnson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's 48 month sentence on a felony DWI conviction. Judge Ross drafted the opinion.

In March of 2007 an officer approached a truck and asked its occupant to shut off the motor. The occupant, Johnson, had a blood alcohol content of .27. Johnson was charged with two counts of first-degree driving while impaired. He pleaded guilty to first-degree DWI and acknowledged that he had prior convictions for alcohol-related driving offenses in 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2005.

At the sentencing hearing, the lawyer for Johnson tried to to persuade the court to disregard the prior felony DWI because Johnson was not on probation for that offense and because it was the subject of an appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals at the time he committed the more recent offense. The Scott County district court had found Johnson guilty of felony DWI for the 2005 offense in early 2006. The argument, however, was that that Johnson had not been “convicted” of that offense because of the pending appeal.

Judge Ross wrote:

Johnson’s arguments regarding the timing of his prior appeal and his probation status are immaterial to whether he was previously convicted. Johnson offers no legal basis or plausible reasoning to support his contention that a defendant is not “convicted” until this court decides his appeal. Our opening line deciding that earlier appeal begins, 'Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree refusal to submit to a chemical test.'

The Court found that because Johnson was convicted of a felony DWI before 2007, the district court properly considered Johnson’s prior conviction and did not err by imposing the presumptive 48 month executed prison sentence.

The more drunk driving convictions a defendant has on their record, the less sympathetic courts are in hearing arguments for a reduced charge or sentence. The Johnson case provides a clear example of a lack of sympathy on the part of Judge Ross, who wrote, "Johnson’s arguments miss the mark." It doesn't get much clearer than that. Kudos to counsel for trying.

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

In a decision published on March 24, 2009 entitled State v. Fleck, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed that evidence that a person was alone, intoxicated, and asleep behind the wheel of his car parked in an assigned space in his apartment’s parking lot at 11:30 p.m. with the keys on the console, was sufficient to support a finding that he was "in physical control" of the motor vehicle within the meaning of Minnesota's drunk driving laws.

Late one evening, law enforcement responded to a call and found Fleck asleep behind the wheel of his car. The relevant vehicle was legally parked in an assigned space at the apartment building where he lived. Fleck was drunk, with a blood alcohol content of .18. The keys to the car were on the console between the driver and passenger seats, but there was no evidence that Fleck had recently driven the vehicle. Fleck was arrested and charged with two counts of felony DWI for being in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired. He was convicted and ordered to serve 48 months in prison.

On appeal, Fleck argued that evidence that he was simply sleeping in his car, at his home, while intoxicated, was insufficient to support a finding that he was in physical control of the vehicle within the meaning of Minnesota's DWI statutes. The relevant statute provides that any individual who drives, operates, or is in physical control of any motor vehicle within the State of Minnesota while under the influence of alcohol or with an alcohol concentration of .08 or more is guilty of a crime. A person is in physical control of a vehicle if he "has the means to initiate any movement of that vehicle and he is in close proximity to the operating controls of the vehicle."

Judge Stoneburner wrote, "the evidence of Fleck’s use of his vehicle was not inconsistent with driving the vehicle, and the keys were readily available to him." His felony DWI conviction was affirmed.The Court distinguished this case from another, State v. Pazderski , in which the Court found that an intoxicated, sleeping vehicle occupant should not have been charged with a DWI. Of importantance, in Pazderski, no keys ever found in the vehicle.

What's frustrating about the Fleck decision is the fact that the Court went out of it's way to make a specific finding that there was "no evidence" that Fleck had driven the vehicle in question while under the influence. Seems to me that a rigid application of the relevant standard in this instance leads to a grossly  unjust result. It makes far better sense for an officer to have probable cause to arrest someone for a DWI if, for example, the car engine is warm, there are fresh tire tracks in the snow, or some other objective evidence of vehicle operation presents itself - rather than pure speculation about whether a car was, or will be, driven.

If you have been charged with a DWI, you need to know your rights. The DWI lawyers with the Brown Law Offices, P.A. provide a strong defense. Please call (763) 323-6555 or contact us through our online consultation form.

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

In an unpublished decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals entitled State v. Lucht, Judge Kalitowski affirmed Lucht's conviction for second degree driving while impaired despite her claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Lucht argued that the prosecutor’s use of “were they lying”- type questions during cross-examination constituted prosecutorial error during the trial.

Because Lucht failed to object to the prosecutor’s questions during trial, the alleged prosecutorial error was reviewed under the plain-error standard. To establish plain error, a defendant must show that (1) there was error, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected his or her substantial rights. If these three prongs are met, the appellate court then assesses whether it should address the error to ensure fairness and the integrity of the judicial proceedings.

Generally, questions designed to elicit testimony from one witness about the credibility of another have no probative value and are considered improper and argumentative. But the prosecutor may ask these questions when the defendant holds the issue of the credibility of the state’s witnesses in central focus.

“Were they lying” - type questions may be permissible when those questions would be particularly probative in clarifying a line of testimony, or when the jury must evaluate the credibility of a witness who claims that everyone but the witness lied, or when the witness flatly denies the occurrence of events, and thereby places the central focus on the credibility of the state’s witnesses.

In this instance, the Court affirmed based upon the fact that no plain error occurred in allowing "were they lying" - type questions. Lucht's version of the facts in her case differed substantially from that of three witnesses to the events in question.

Even if there were an error in allowing such questions:

In light of the strong evidence against appellant–testimony from three witnesses about appellant’s intoxication, the BAC test results, and appellant’s unclear and inconsistent testimony–we conclude that there is no reasonable likelihood that the absence of any prosecutorial error would have significantly affected the jury’s verdict.

This opinion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals sounds radically different from that which was rendered by the Maryland Court of Appeals in 2007. In State v. Hunter, Judge Cathell opined that "When prosecutors ask 'were-they-lying' questions, especially when they ask them of a defendant, they, almost always, will risk reversal."

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

DWI involves the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the degree that cognitive and motor skills are impaired. In Minnesota, DWI laws also apply not only to motor vehicles, but also to recreational vehicles, such as ATVs, airplanes, boats and snowmobiles.

Minnesota statutes outline four major categories of drunk driving crimes:

• First Degree (Felony) DWI;
• Second Degree (Gross Misdemeanor) DWI;
• Third Degree (Misdemeanor )DWI; and
• Fourth Degree (Misdemeanor) DWI.

The degree of a DWI in Minnesota depends upon whether "aggravating factors" are present at the time of arrest. These factors include:

• A qualified prior impaired driving incident within the ten years immediately preceding the current offense; 
• Having an alcohol concentration of .20 or more as measured at the time, or within two hours of the time, of the offense; and
• Having a child under the age of 16 in the motor vehicle at the time of the offense, if the child is more than 36 months younger than the offender.

A drunk driver is guilty of first-degree DWI if they commit a violation within ten years of the first three or more drunk driving incidents, or have been previously convicted of felony DWI in Minnesota. A drunk driver is guilty of second-degree DWI if two or more aggravating factors were present when the violation was committed. A drunk driver is guilty of third-degree DWI if one aggravating factor was present when the violation was committed. A drunk driver is guilty of fourth-degree DWI if their blood alcohol content totals .08 or more at the time of operating a motor vehicle.

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

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that 2,655 people were cited for drunk driving in Minnesota last month. The relevant article by Paul Walsh claims that the average blood alcohol content of impaired drivers that were arrested and charged was .14, nearly twice the legal limit.

Walsh points out that enhanced DWI patrols with continue through 2009 in the most critical areas of the state for drunk driving offenses, including Anoka County, Hennepin County, Dakota County, Sherburne County, Wright County and Washington County. From 2005 through 2007, 533 motorists have been killed by drunk drivers on Minnesota roads, 1,200 serious injuries were sustained as the result of a drunk driver and more than 117,000 (nearly twice the capacity of the Metrodome) were arrested for driving drunk.

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

Minnesota's felony DWI laws are among the toughest in the country. According to the Minnesota Felony DWI statute, a person who violates section 169A.20 (driving while impaired) is guilty of first-degree driving while impaired if the person:

• Commits the violation within ten years of the first of three or more qualified prior impaired driving incidents; or 
• Has previously been convicted of a felony DWI.

A person who commits first-degree driving while impaired is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than seven years (longer if they have a criminal history), or to payment of a fine of not more than $14,000, or both.

A person confined to prison for a felony DWI in Minnesota is not eligible for early release unless the inmate has successfully completed a chemical dependency treatment program while incarcerated. The court will also require a felony DWI offender to remain on conditional release for five years following release. The former inmate is subject to any conditions that the commissioner of corrections opts to impose, including an intensive probation program. If the defendant fails to comply with the release conditions, the commissioner of corrections may revoke probation and return them to prison.

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

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that a Minneapolis police officer will likely be charged with a DWI for driving drunk during off-duty hours. Jeffrey Pennaz was arrested yesterday afternoon by Plymouth and Medina police. Two children were in the vehicle when Pennanz was pulled over. 

Blood alcohol test results indicated a blood alcohol content of .21, nearly three times the legal limit. He faces gross misdemeanor charges a result of two aggravating factors: having a child in the vehicle and have a blood alcohol content in excess of .20.

A second degree DWI is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine. The State may also impound the license plates of the driver and seek to forfeit the vehicle that was being driven. Pennaz was booked and released.

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

In early July, Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety Michael Campion offered strong words to those who drive drunk on Minnesota roads. Here are few excerpts from his piece featured in the July 2, 2008 edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"It is frankly embarrassing, and even more so disturbing, that impaired driving continues to be a major safety concern and threat on Minnesota roads. The magnitude in which the behavior occurs demonstrates that many motorists simply don't recognize how serious and potentially damaging or fatal this crime is...These cases are far too frequent. In the last three years on Minnesota roads, alcohol-related crashes accounted for 540 traffic deaths and 1,300 serious, life-altering injuries. Over half a million Minnesotans have a DWI -- that's one in eight with a driver's license. Each year, about 100 motorists are arrested daily for DWI."  

Tough to argue with Commissioner Campion. Read the full opinion piece here. At the same time, however, reacting to a problem is less effective than dealing with the source of the problem itself. Difficult to say why so many people choose to drink and drive in Minnesota. Despite a reputation for "Minnesota nice" and repeatedly listed as a "top place to live" by Money Magazine, something in the fabric of this state enables intoxicated drivers to get behind the wheel more than virtually every other state in the nation. Any thoughts about this? Drop me a note. 
 

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

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that a Faribault man has died from a fall from a golf cart. The driver of the cart, a 47 year old Richfield man, was allegedly intoxicated at the time of the fall and faces criminal vehicular homicide and DWI charges.

The two men were camping with friends over the 4th of July and were returning from a fireworks display when the victim rolled off the back of the cart. The victim struck his head on the pavement and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Under Minnesota's DWI laws, the operation of any motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol constitutes a crime. By definitiation, golf carts are included. "Motor vehicle" is defined by statute as "every vehicle that is self-propelled."

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

Being in "physical control" of a motor vehicle under Minnesota's DWI statutes encumpasses a broad range of behaviors. At one point, "actual" physical control of  a vehicle was required, but that phrase was removed from the DUI statutes many years back. In order to convict someone for drunk driving, the State must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in "control" of a motor vehicle.

"Control" under Minnesota law means that a driver is: (1) in a position to exercise control over a vehicle; (2) has the means to initiate movement of a vehicle; and (3) is in close proximity to the operating controls of a motor vehicle. The fact that someone is located near a vehicle is not sufficient to establish physical control.

The ultimate question comes down to whether a person is in a position to drive, not whether they actually drove. As a result, an intoxicated individual sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle that is not running may still be charged with a DWI. Of course, many unique circumstances may give rise to a legitimate reason for an intoxicated individual to sit at the controls of a car in the absence of an intent to drive, including inclimate weather, sleeping or some other emergency situation. Such cases come down to the intent of the driver and the validity of the surrounding circumstances.

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

A Fourth Degree drunk driving charge, according to Minnesota law, is a misdemeanor. The maximum penalty for such an offense is thirty (30) days in jail and a $1,000 fine. In addition to the criminal penalties that accompany a DUI, the Department of Public Safety imposes its own consequences.

Because the possession of a drivers license in Minnesota is a privilege, and not a right, the Department of Public Safety has the ability to impose whatever conditions it deems appropriate in order for an individual to possess a drivers license. One such condition involves the requirement that every driver submit to a blood alcohol test when asked by law enforcement. A failure to do so results in what is known as an “Implied Consent” violation and, ultimately, a suspension of your drivers license.

That same suspension occurs if an individual submits to blood alcohol testing and is determined to have been in control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content above .08. Some argue that it is unconstitutional to assume that an individual is guilty of such an offense, given the presumption of innocence inherent in our criminal justice system. However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has addressed all arguments time and again and continues to grant the Department the authority to impose such penalties.

Typically, the officer will clip a drivers’ license and give them a seven day temporary driving permit. Once that seven day driving permit expires, the individual's license is suspended for a period of ninety (90) days. First time offenders will appreciate the fact that they can seek a work permit, but cannot do so until two weeks have passed since the initial date of the suspension. The conditional license allows for the operation of a motor vehicle to or from work and, in some circumstances, to alcohol treatment, doctor visits and to care for family members. In order to obtain a conditional license, the accused must meet with a representative from the Department of Public Safety and explain their circumstance. If the agent agrees that a conditional license is appropriate, one will issue.
 

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

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that Minnesota ranks third-worst in the nation when it comes to DWI & DUI. Click here the read the Minneapolis newspaper article on DWI frequency in Minnesota.

Just two states fared worse in a government study: Wisconsin and North Dakota. Nationally, it was reported that 15 percent of drivers indicated that they drove under the influence of alcohol over the last year. In Minnesota, 23.5 percent of drivers indicated that they operated a car after consuming alcohol during the same period.

In 2006, almost 42,000 motorists were arrested for a DUI in Minnesota: enough to fill the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul and the Target Center in Minneapolis together.

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

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in partnership with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has published a summary of Minnesota DWI & DUI statutes entitled "EZ DWI: A Quick Reference Guide for the Enforcment of DWI and Related Statutes." If you've been charged with a DUI, we know you'll find this information helpful. Click to read the Minnesota DWI EZ Guide.

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