While some vehicle repairs should be done as soon as possible—such as replacing burned out lights—other, non-essential ones that don’t create a safety hazard can wait. Whereas most people view a cracked windshield as a non-essential repair that must be fixed immediately—especially due to the potentially high cost—a recent Minnesota case addressed the question of whether police can stop you for a cracked windshield.

At the present time, Minnesota law (Statute 169.71) says that a motorist may not operate a vehicle with a cracked or discolored windshield “to the extent that it limits or obstructs proper vision.” But how does one ascertain whether the crack does, in fact, limit or obstruct the driver’s vision?

Poehler v. Minnesota

Quite recently, a Minnesota District Court heard the case of Poehler v. State of Minnesota. In this case, the appellant was stopped by a police officer for having a cracked windshield, and the subsequent traffic stop uncovered that Poehler was also under the influence of alcohol and not wearing his seatbelt. Consequently, a breath test administered at the scene revealed Poehler’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .174—double the legal limit to be considered intoxicated—and he was charged with DWI.

At trial, the defense pushed to have the charges dropped and the case dismissed because the traffic stop was predicated on the fact that Poehler was initially stopped for having a cracked windshield. Further, the police report never stated as to whether the crack obscured Poehler’s vision. Thus, the defense urged that the cracked windshield in and of itself did not justify the traffic stop. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the only way to know whether the crack impeded Poehler’s vision was to conduct the traffic stop.

On appeal

Poehler appealed, and the Appellate Court sided with the defendant. In his ruling, Judge Kevin Ross wrote that the only justification for a traffic stop based on a cracked windshield was whether the crack’s characteristics “limits or obstructs the driver’s vision” as stated in existing law. Judge Ross addressed the prosecution’s arguments by stating that it was a slippery slope argument that required additional evidence or the officer actually witnessing a traffic violation to justify a traffic stop.

In praising the Appellate Court’s ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stressed that low-level offenses such as having a cracked windshield pave the way for other arbitrary traffic stops without adequate probable cause that lead to net-widening and increasing the number of people who have contact with law enforcement and the criminal justice system as a whole.

A snafu

However, the court held that the traffic stop was valid because Poehler wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Judge Ross added that even if Poehler was, in fact, wearing a seat belt, the traffic stop and subsequent discovery that Poehler was driving while intoxicated would still be valid because of US Supreme Court cases in which the Court held that searches and seizures based on mistakes of fact can still be reasonable. Thus, even if the police officer was mistaken in thinking that the crack impeded Poehler’s view, the subsequent good-faith traffic stop revealed enough evidence for the charges to stand.

The dangers of cracked windshields

Of course, this does not mean that you shouldn’t fix your cracked windshields. Even small imperfections or those tiny annoying spider cracks can quickly spread, especially during the winter when outside cold temperatures interact with the vehicle’s heated interior, thus affecting the structural integrity of the glass. Further, should you be involved in an accident, a cracked windshield also compromises the vehicle’s integrity as a whole, especially if the car is involved in a rollover accident.

Repairing minor windshield imperfections are far less costly, quick, and easy—as opposed to having to replace your entire windshield and risk being stopped by police.

The holidays should be a time of family, friends, and merriment; however, far too frequently, drinking and driving can put a serious damper on holiday celebrations. Driving while intoxicated (DWI) continues to be a very real problem across the US.

Here’s how you can protect yourself this holiday season.

Be cognizant of your actions

1. Don’t drink and drive. It is that simple. To stay safe while on the road, if you have been drinking or using drugs, then don’t get behind the wheel. Even if you’ve only had a few drinks and feel fine, it is best to not drive. Not only might you underestimate the impact of any alcohol you may have consumed, but DWI patrols are oftentimes out in force during the holidays, and if you are stopped—even with a BAC of less than the legal limit of .08—you could still be charged with DWI.

2. If you are celebrating with others, choose a designated sober driver before the festivities are underway. A designated driver is responsible for staying sober for the entire day and during any events in order to ensure that everyone gets home safely.

3. Take advantage of public transportation and rideshare programs. If you don’t have a designated driver, there are many options of which to take advantage: taxi, bus, Uber or Lyft, party buses, and others.

4. If you see someone who is intoxicated trying to get into his/her vehicle to drive home, try to get his/her car keys and offer alternatives for him/her to get home safely.

Get the keys

Getting an intoxicated person’s car keys can be difficult, but if s/he ends up being responsible for a traffic accident or fatality, the situation is much worse, and if you were aware of his/her intoxicated state, you could end up living with a lifetime of guilt.

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) offers tips for preventing an intoxicated person from driving by collecting his/her keys:
• Use a calm approach. Suggest to him/her that s/he has had too much to drink and, perhaps, it would be better for him/her to get a ride home instead of driving him/herself.
• Make light of or joke about the situation to minimize friction. Avoid embarrassment at all costs.
• Make it sound as though you are doing him/her a favor.
• While s/he is preoccupied, find the keys and take them. In many cases, the intoxicated person will simply think s/he lost the keys and find another way home.
• If you are close to the person—good friend, spouse, family member, significant other, etc.—inform him/her that you will not be riding if s/he insists on driving.
• If you don’t know the person, talk to his/her friends and ask them to try to persuade their friend to give up his/her keys.

How you can keep yourself safe on the road

Above are tips you can take to ensure you don’t drive drunk, but how do you keep yourself safe from drunk drivers?

1. When on the road, drive as if everyone around you is intoxicated. Keeping your distance from the vehicle in front of you, staying alert for oncoming traffic, and being prepared for evasive maneuvers, if necessary, are all steps you can take to keep yourself safe while driving during the holiday season.

2. Avoid highways, if possible.

3. Avoid driving very late at night as this is when many drunk drivers are on the road.

4. Report any driver you believe is driving while under the influence. By being proactive and reporting a motorist who you suspect of driving drunk, you may save a life.

5. Utilize extra caution at intersections. Many alcohol-related accidents occur at intersections. Therefore, don’t simply assume that someone else will stop at a red light.

6. Under no circumstances, let your friend or family member drive drunk. Regardless of how angry s/he might get at you at the moment, s/he will invariably thank you in the morning.

Whether you drive drunk or sober is up to you; however, while you can’t make someone else not drink, you can minimize his/her effect on the road. The holidays should be celebratory, not tragic.

Happy Holidays and stay safe!

With an increasing number of states legalizing marijuana medicinally, recreationally, or both, questions arise as to how—if at all—this legalization will impact DWI law. Given that more states are legalizing marijuana begs the question of how law enforcement officers are supposed to detect drivers who are under the influence. Additionally, questions are raised as to what it means to be over the limit in this context.

Effects of legalization in Washington and Colorado

A 2016 CATO Institute Policy Analysis examined the impact of state marijuana legalizations on several factors. With respect to road safety and DWIs specifically, this report evaluated opposing prior literature that suggested: first, that marijuana impairs driving ability and, thus increases accident incidence; and second, that marijuana legalization improves traffic safety because marijuana is a substitute for alcohol and may even improve the driving of persons who use marijuana to alleviate chronic pain.

Many governments—at federal, state, and local levels—warned that legalization marijuana would increase traffic accidents significantly. However, the data vary. According to the AAA Foundation, when Washington state legalized recreational marijuana, the number of fatal automobile accidents increased. Among the key findings included that between 2010 and 2014, 303 drivers (10% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents) had detectable levels of THC in their blood at the time of the accident with or without alcohol and/or other drugs. Additionally, after recreational marijuana was legalized, the proportion of DWI drivers who tested positive for THC increased significantly nine months after the new law went into effect.

However, data from Colorado demonstrate that highway fatalities were at historic lows following legalization. Further, marijuana legalization in Oregon and Alaska also showed no discernible increase—and even slight decreases—in traffic fatalities.

Marijuana legalization and changing laws

Most of the states which have legalized marijuana have not changed their DWI laws. Generally, these laws are of two types: per se and impairment. Per se DWI laws require the prosecutor to prove the driver had a BAC of .08 or greater at the time s/he was stopped. Impairment need not be proven as the presence of the substance in question in his/her system is usually enough to secure a conviction. However, most of these laws apply only to alcohol consumption as marijuana is not measured in BAC. Thus, a motorist who is driving while under the influence of marijuana cannot typically be convicted of a per se DWI.

On the other hand, impairment DWI charges do, in fact, apply to marijuana use in that these laws focus on the effect of the drugs on the driver, not on the actual amount of the drug in the driver’s system. Further, impairment DWI laws do not limit whether the drug in question was illegal or legal. Thus, even if a motorist has legally ingested marijuana, if s/he is impaired and drives, s/he can be convicted of DWI.

Determining impairment

Proving whether impairment exists and its degree is the difficult part. Complicating matters is that each state has its own degree of impairment requirements. Currently, Minnesota’s laws are zero-tolerance with respect to Schedule I and Schedule II controlled substances (including marijuana.) Thus, if you are driving while impaired—from any substance—you could be charged with a DWI.

According to one  San Diego criminal defense attorney, determining what it means to be “too high to drive” given that people are of different sizes and have different tolerance levels can be difficult. She asks where does one start setting this amount? What is the marijuana equivalent of .08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC)? She stresses that until science “catches up,” police must rely on traditional roadside sobriety tests to determine intoxication.

Regardless of the fact that marijuana is legal in many states, it is still illegal to drive while under the influence.

You can check out our earlier article on potential marijuana legalization in Minnesota here.

Depending on the job, being convicted of a DWI—or even having been arrested—may hinder your ability to get a job. Many employers ask about job applicants’ criminal record, and many run background checks to help them find the perfect candidate. While hiring decisions are, ultimately, at the employer’s discretion, there are some protections for job applicants who have had a DWI or other conviction.

Sensitive jobs

A simple DWI arrest generally won’t affect your job search because most states permit employers to ask only about convictions. However, some states permit employers to ask applicants about certain arrests.

Some employers may be more concerned about DWI arrests and convictions than others. Positions requiring driving—particularly a company vehicle such as delivery, bus, and truck drivers—could be problematic. In California, for example, employers require applicants to disclose any DWI- or drug-related arrests if they are applying for certain jobs with access to medications. Similarly, if you are looking to work with children, seeking a government job, or applying for a job that involves handling sensitive and confidential information, a DWI conviction may prove problematic.

Other potential problems

In addition to having a criminal record, getting a DWI can also raise concerns in other areas related to employment. For example, if you get your driver’s license revoked or suspended, you may be left without reliable transportation in order to get to work. This may be particularly troublesome if you live in an area without adequate public transportation or don’t have anyone to rely on for a ride.

The law may protect you

There are two federal laws that provide somewhat limited protection to job applications who may have criminal records: Title VII and The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Title VII—Criminal record-based discrimination

Part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII protects job applicants and existing employees from employment discrimination which include hiring and screening practices. Because arrest and incarceration rates are significantly higher for certain minorities in the US, if an employer has a policy that categorically excludes any applicant with a criminal record, s/he may be guilty of racial discrimination.

To address this, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provides guidance for employers to weed out risky applicants without discriminating against them. Among the factors for consideration include the nature and seriousness of the offense, the time since the offense or sentence, and the nature of the job being applied for. The EEOC also urges employers to afford candidates the ability to explain the circumstances of their case.

Fair Credit Reporting Act

The FCRA handles accuracy concerns because some background checks may include errors. Such errors can include:

• Recording the same offense multiple times
• Failing to report exonerations
• Incomplete information
• Records that have been expunged
• Misclassification of offenses
• Records belonging to someone else with the same name

The FCRA requires that employers who request criminal background checks on job applicants get the applicant’s written consent prior to the check, inform the applicant that information contained in the report may exclude him/her from consideration, and notify the applicant of their decision to not consider the applicant based on information contained in the report.

In Minnesota

Minnesota recently joined the ranks of a handful of other states by enacting “ban the box” legislation, This law prohibits employers from asking, considering, or requiring applicants to disclose any criminal history until they are chosen for an interview or offered a conditional employment offer without an interview. Employers may, however, notify candidates that certain criminal offenses will automatically disqualify them from certain jobs.

The bottom line is to be truthful. As mentioned, while you don’t have to volunteer any information, likewise, you shouldn’t lie either. If asked, be honest. After all, a background check will likely provide the employer with the necessary information. Being honest and up front is indicative of good character, as is admitting you had a lapse of judgment, are remorseful, and have learned your lesson.

A good DWI lawyer can help

If you have been charged and/or convicted of a DWI, consulting with a knowledgeable and experienced DWI lawyer can go a long way toward protecting not only your freedom and financial situations, but also future job prospects. Your lawyer will seek to secure you a not guilty plea, negotiate penalties, and even work to get your record expunged, if applicable.

What is marijuana? Quite simply, it is a combination of the flower buds, stems, and leaves of the Cannabis sativa plant. It contains delta 9-tetrahydracannabinol (THC) which is the drug’s intoxication chemical as well as at least 500 different chemicals—many of them carcinogenic. Marijuana also contains cannabidiol (CBD) that serves to counteract THC effects. These compounds can affect your body and mind in several ways.

Prevalence of marijuana use in the US

While marijuana—also known as pot, weed, grass, and other slang terms—can be smoked, vaporized, eaten, brewed, and “ingested” topically, the majority of people smoke it. According to a 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), as many as 17.4 million Americans admitted to using marijuana within the past month. A 2016 Gallup Poll found that one out of eight people smoke marijuana while 43 percent of adults have admitted trying it. Today, this number is presumed even higher as many states and Washington, D.C. have legalized marijuana in some fashion, whether medicinally, recreationally, or both.

Over the years, the average THC content has increased from less than one percent in 1972 to nearly four percent in 1990 to as much as 13 percent in 2010. These amounts continue to rise. Today, some marijuana contains 30 percent or more THC. Increased potency complicates determining accurate long- and short-term effects of the drug.

Marijuana ingestion

When marijuana is smoked, THC is absorbed through the lungs and into the bloodstream. Marijuana can be smoked in cigarette form (a joint) or through bongs, glass pipes, bubblers, blunts, and other paraphernalia. More recently, vaporization—or vaping—has emerged as a smokeless delivery system. Because the marijuana is heated at a lower temperature, studies suggest that this method is healthier than regular smoking because the user inhales fewer toxic compounds and carbon monoxide. Either way, smoking marijuana is the quickest way to achieve the desired result—a euphoric high. Generally, your high will peak in about 30 minutes and then taper off between one and four hours.

Marijuana can also be ingested orally. The effects are slower because the THC must first pass through the digestive system to reach the bloodstream. Thus, effects may take up to two hours; however, they will generally last longer—as many as eight hours—than smoking. Cannabis can also be added into baked goods, candies, and even brewed in a tea.

Marijuana and your body

Despite being a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana does have some medical benefits such relieving chronic pain, reducing the effects of glaucoma, alleviating nausea, and inducing appetite. However, marijuana can also cause damage to your body.

Contrary to popular belief among those who regularly use marijuana, marijuana smoke can, in fact, cause many of the same respiratory problems from which tobacco smokers suffer such as cough, increased phlegm production, more frequent illnesses like bronchitis and pneumonia, and greater instance of lung infections

However, according to a 2013 study by UCLA professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine Dr. Donald Tashkin, heavy marijuana users do not seem to be at a higher risk for developing lung cancer. While this is good news, another study in 2017 did find that regular marijuana users were 26 percent more likely to suffer a stroke—and ten percent more likely to develop heart problems, including increasing heart rate from as little as 20 percent up to 100 percent—than non-smokers. Because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, long-term studies on other aspects—such as edibles—are lacking.

Marijuana also affects both gross and fine motor skills which makes driving or otherwise operating any heavy machinery risky while under the influence.

The effects of marijuana on the brain

Marijuana targets the same brain pleasure centers as cocaine, alcohol, and heroin. Depending on consumption, quality, and quantity, marijuana can produce a feeling of euphoria—a “high”—by stimulating brain cells to release dopamine.

Marijuana can also alter your mood, make you feel more relaxed, stimulate your senses, affect time, and increase appetite. Marijuana can also cause anxiety, short-term memory loss, sedation, elation, relaxation, pain-relief, paranoia, hallucinations, concentration issues, decreased interest, and a host of physical effects such as loss of coordination and tachycardia.

Additionally, when coming down from the high, you may feel quite tired or depressed and, in some cases, may suffer from anxiety, insomnia, irritability, and agitation.

Emerging evidence suggests that marijuana may also affect your memory, learning, and attention for as many as 24 hours after use. There is no evidence suggesting sustained harm in these area with long-term use.

People offer numerous reasons for making the decision to drink and drive. Perhaps they don’t think they are intoxicated. Or maybe they believe the laws don’t apply to them. Others justify driving drunk based on the short distance they are going. Aligned with these dangerous beliefs, there is a slew of drunk driving myths that many people continue to believe. Let’s debunk them.

Myths

There are many myths surrounding drinking and driving. Here are the most common.

It’s illegal to drink and drive

Actually, it is perfectly legal to have a beer or a glass of wine—or even a shot—and drive as long as you are not legally intoxicated. Most people are not affected enough by one drink over dinner, for example, to render them intoxicated under the law.

Drinking coffee, eating, and/or taking a cold shower will sober me up

In reality, the only way to sober up after drinking is by letting your body naturally metabolize the alcohol. This usually occurs at the rate of two hours per drink. Coffee doesn’t alleviate alcohol effects. All coffee will do is make a drunk person wide-eyed, awake, and nervous—and still in no condition to drive.

As for eating, first of all, you should never drink on an empty stomach; however, eating while drinking is not a sure-fire defense against impairment.

Finally, with respect to a cold shower, while this may momentarily wake you up, it does nothing to speed up your body’s ability to metabolize alcohol.

I shouldn’t submit to a breathalyzer if stopped

Most states—including Minnesota—have an Implied Consent law in which everyone with a driver’s license implicitly agrees to submit to a breath test if suspected of drunk driving. Failure to do so can result in additional charges or penalties.

However, only with respect to blood and urine tests, in Minnesota, refusal is not a crime unless law enforcement gets a search warrant, and therefore you won’t be subject to additional charges for refusing. The rationale behind this is that—without a warrant based on probable cause—a blood or urine test is intrusive and amounts to an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

If I hyperventilate before my breath test, I will blow a lower blood alcohol concentration (BAC)

This is just wrong. It is impossible to affect breathalyzer results by simply breathing differently. The same holds true if you have an ignition interlock device (IID) in your vehicle. While certain ingested substances can, in fact, affect a breathalyzer result, simply changing your breathing cannot.

For more information on breathalyzer tests and Minnesota law, check out our earlier article.

I’m only driving a few blocks

Given that most car accidents occur between two and five miles away from home, is this something you want to risk?

After I sleep, I will be fine to drive

As previously mentioned, it takes two hours to fully metabolize one alcoholic beverage. If you drink five drinks in a short time and sleep for, say, five hours, you will still be under the influence and will likely blow above the legal limit. You would need at least ten hours of sleep for the alcohol from five drinks to wear off.

If I just drink beer and not hard liquor, I will be okay to drive

Beer is still alcohol. In fact, one 12-ounce beer has the same alcohol content as a five-ounce glass of fine or a half-ounce shot of 80-proof whiskey.

I’m not that drunk, I can still drive

Even if you may have driven drunk 100 times in the past without an accident or arrest, it doesn’t take much alcohol to impair your ability to drive safely. Alcohol affects vision, coordination, reaction time, judgment, attention span, and multi-tasking ability—all critical aspects of driving. Do you really want to keep tempting fate?

I won’t get caught

Because of the increase in anti-DWI efforts by law enforcement, governments, and civilian groups, drunk driving penalties have gotten more severe and the use of DWI checkpoints has risen. It’s better to be safe than sorry and don’t risk it.

It’s best to take a plea bargain for a DWI

Contrary to popular belief, many DWI charges have been fought—and beaten—in court due to poor police work and questionable evidence. In some cases, the charges are dismissed outright. While fighting a DWI charge can be difficult, retaining the services of a skilled and experienced defense attorney is your best bet to fight these charges.

Back in May, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down its decision in State v. Hunn which dealt with citizens’ constitutional right to DWI pre-test counsel. At the heart of the case was whether there existed a constitutional right for DWI suspects to consult with a lawyer prior to submitting to a BAC test in criminal cases or whether this right only existed in civil implied consent cases.

Previous law

Per the Sixth Amendment, every individual is provided the right to counsel in criminal prosecutions. In 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright extended this right to the states. Then, in 1991, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided, in Friedman, when the “critical stage” occurs prompting the right to counsel in DWI cases.

In prior cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that when a driver is asked to take a chemical test, this represents a “critical stage” in the process. As such, the right to counsel attaches.

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §171.177, a blood or urine test refusal in the face of a warrant is a crime subject to immediate driver’s license revocation. The warrant request should represent a “critical stage” in a DWI proceeding and should, therefore, mean that the subject is entitled to consult with an attorney prior to testing. Not allowing the person under arrest to consult with attorney before asking them to submit to the warrant is, clearly, unconstitutional.

Facts of the case

In Hunn, police officers arrested the defendant on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer failed to read Hunn the implied consent advisory that contains the limited right to counsel and then asked Hunn to take a urine test. Hunn agreed, and his sample showed the presence of methamphetamine.

At trial, Hunn sought to suppress the sample and the district court granted his pretrial motion. The appellate court reversed this decision on the grounds that the district court erroneously relied on Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety. The case then went to the state Supreme Court.

Holding

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the right to consult with an attorney applies only if police chose to invoke the implied consent advisory.

Officers typically read DWI suspects the advisory prior to administering any DWI tests to explain that the law requires that the person take a test to determine whether s/he was under the influence; that refusal to submit to a test is a crime; that the person has the right to consult with an attorney before testing within a reasonable duration of time; and if there is an unreasonable delay or the person refuses to decide then the suspect will have been determined to have refused testing.

What this decision means is that the right to pre-test counsel is only applicable to the implied consent process and not the criminal process for DWI cases. Thus, if the arresting officer chooses to not invoke the implied consent advisory—or has a warrant—then the driver does not have any unique decision to make regarding submitting to the test and, therefore, has no right to consult with his/her attorney prior to testing.

It appears the Court focused on the fact that pre-test counsel was originally suited to help motorists determine whether to submit to or refuse BAC testing and not on the constitutional guarantee of a right to counsel afforded all criminal defendants.

An effective DWI investigation is comprised of many aspects and steps. In their most basic sense, officers stop motorists suspected of driving while impaired to determine whether they are, in fact, impaired and to obtain as much legally admissible evidence as they can.

Of course, a critical component is ensuring that the officer is trustworthy and believable. Even amidst the best evidence, if jurors doubt the credibility and veracity of the officer, then the investigation may well be for naught.

One highly useful task in ensuring an effective DWI investigation and obtaining useful evidence is the art of conversational interrogation. This technique combines the art of conversation with the skill of interrogation to elicit the most information possible. By their very nature, conversations are two-way: one person says something, the other responds, the first person responds back, and so forth. Interrogations, however, are comprised of asking another person specific questions. Whereas conversations can help individuals connect with each other, interrogations generally do not. If a person knows that s/he was heard and that another person is interested in what s/he has to say, then s/he will be more inclined to provide more information.

Conversational interrogation

A recent PoliceOne article discussed how law enforcement can improve DWI investigations through the art of conversational interrogation. Even though questioning any suspect is, in fact, an interrogation designed to ask specific questions to elicit incriminating responses, there are no prohibitions against making these interrogations more conversational and, perhaps, eliciting even more incriminating information against a suspect.

At the heart of conversational interrogation are three procedures: ask many open-ended questions, listen actively without interrupting, and avoid closed yes-or-no questions. First, open-ended questions prompt a stopped motorist to describe or explain something. “What have you been doing today?” is an example of an open-ended question designed to obtain more information than a simple yes-or-no question. Second, listening actively without interrupting naturally means that the suspect is providing the information. Finally, closed questions like “Have you been drinking?” naturally force the suspect to shut down and do not add much to the investigation.

Considerable field studies of police field interrogations consistently demonstrate that officers ask far more closed questions than open-ended ones. This is not useful for a number of reasons. First of all, cooperative suspects will provide more information and do it feely. Further, the more people talk, the better of a relationship you will cultivate with them. Additionally, an officer who is seen as friendly and conversational will attract more credibility in court.

Other ways law enforcement can improve DWI investigations

In addition to improving how officers interact with suspects at traffic stops, there are several other ways police agencies can prioritize anti-drunk driving efforts. First of all, it is critical to make drunk driving prevention and apprehension a high priority within the agency. Given the tragic frequency at which drunk-driving accidents occur, prevention and education should be high atop any agency’s priority list.

Next, taking advantage of new and emerging technology can go a long way toward improving efficiency and effectiveness. Technologies such as the DDS2 Mobile Test System, the DRUID mobile app, SCRAM ankle monitors, and other technologies can go a long way in helping departments reach their DWI prevention and reduction goals.

Increasing the use of DWI checkpoints can also lead to significant reductions in DWIs because they serve to stop impaired drivers before they can wreak havoc. Well-publicized and frequent sobriety checkpoints have been shown to deter a large number of potential drunk drivers and do not require considerable staffing to implement. Similarly, using saturation patrols in high-DWI areas also have the potential to deter potential drunk drivers.

Further, focusing efforts on preventing underage drinking through community education has the potential to significantly reduce underage drunk driving. This is particularly salient given that alcohol is the number one drug of choice among youths and DWI rates among teens is quite high.

Of course, improving officer training will also help anti-DWI efforts. Improving training in standardized field sobriety tests (SFST) and providing drug recognition expert (DRE) education instill within officer the knowledge and confidence to help any department achieve its goals.

Finally, teaming up with community stakeholders can also assist law enforcement agencies in preventing and educating the public about drunk driving. Agencies such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have large volunteer staffs who can help promote information and education.

At the beginning of August, a federal judge held that Albuquerque’s civil forfeiture program was unconstitutional and violative of procedural due process. In this landmark case, the court held that the law forced property owners to prove their own innocence which negates citizens’ constitutional protection to being viewed as innocent until proven guilty.

The judge also asserted that forfeiture officials possess an institutional incentive to prosecute forfeiture cases because the more revenue it raises, the more funds are available to spend. In fact, between 2009 and 2016, Albuquerque’s civil forfeiture program generated an incredible $11.8 million.

New Mexico’s civil forfeiture process has been under considerable attack since 2014 when the New York Times exposed program officials using their power to create a “wish list” of items to seize and calling the program a “gold mine.” Thus, in July, 2015, New Mexico became the second state to permit only criminal forfeitures following a conviction.

However, Albuquerque refused to comply and continued to seize vehicles and charge owners—who hadn’t been convicted of any crime—thousands of dollars to regain their property. As the city continued to abuse its power by rejecting obvious innocent owner claims and claiming that its probable-cause hearings were adequate to protect due process, a 2016 Institute of Justice lawsuit resulted in the aforementioned decision.

Minnesota vehicle forfeiture law invalidated

We briefly discussed the state’s DWI vehicle forfeiture law and the potential that innocent vehicle owners could lose their vehicles back in 2014, and, today, it merits a revisit.

One week after the New Mexico court’s verdict, the Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down substantial portions of the state’s DWI vehicle forfeiture law on the same grounds as stated in the New Mexico case—that it was unconstitutional and violated due process.

More specifically, Minnesota’s forfeiture scheme, essentially, denies vehicle owners the right to a prompt and meaningful hearing, thereby leaving vehicles in impound lots for ridiculous lengths of time—years, in some cases—without these owners having their day in court. Second, the forfeiture program’s “hardship relief” is virtually ignored.

What, exactly, gets forfeited?

In 2016, 59 percent of civil forfeitures in Minnesota were vehicles—cars, motorcycles, trucks, and ATVs—28 percent of cases were cash, 11 percent were guns, and one percent was other property. In most cases alcohol and/or drugs were involved—especially with vehicles seized due to drunk driving and property from drug offenses—however, property was also seized in a variety of other crimes such as burglary, robbery, assault, weapons charges, and prostitution, for example.

Recent reforms

Civil asset forfeiture has always been controversial in Minnesota. In 2010, the state prohibited forfeited property to be sold to any law enforcement members, employees, and their families. Then, in 2014, a new law required a conviction in drug cases and drive-by shootings for asset forfeiture. Finally, in 2017, the legislature passed a law protecting vehicle owners whose cars were forfeited due to someone else getting a DWI in their vehicle.

Despite these reforms, however, the data demonstrate that civil asset forfeitures are not decreasing. They are remaining at a steady 6,000 per year since 2011 with annual proceeds of $6 million. In 2016, forfeitures increased to 7,000 with $7.4 million in proceeds.

A question of fairness

Whereas civil asset forfeiture was designed to seize the instrument of a crime and its proceeds, it has been increasingly used as a punishment. This is especially problematic for the regular person who might have gotten a DWI and had his/her car seized. Even more troubling is when the vehicle’s owner wasn’t even the person who allegedly committed a crime but who has lost his/her vehicle.

In Minnesota, an administrative process handles forfeitures and any challenges must occur in civil court. This puts an extreme burden on the average person to hire a lawyer and fight the forfeiture. Consequently, many property owners fail to even contest the forfeiture because of the cost to do so.

Next steps

Lee McGrath, the managing attorney at the Minnesota branch of the libertarian Institute for Justice, has been advocating for a criminal asset forfeiture process like those in New Mexico and Nebraska. In these situations, the forfeiture accompanies the defendant through the criminal court process thus requiring the prosecutor to file forfeiture charges along with the criminal complaint.

Given recent changes in New Mexico—and other states looking to follow suit—this is definitely an issue to keep an eye on in the near future.

Certain times of the year require police crackdowns for drunk driving, and holidays—particularly Labor Day—are atop the list. Despite the difficult winters with which Minnesotans must deal each year, summer driving is far deadlier.

According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Labor Day is second in alcohol-related traffic fatalities only to the 4^th of July over the past five years. Labor Day is particularly worrisome because it is, essentially, the last hurrah of summer before the colder weather of autumn and winter arrives.

Over the last five years, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety reported that on Labor Day alone there were 4.6 DWI arrests per hour—a figure higher than the 4^th of July (4.3), New Year’s Eve (3.9), and St. Patrick’s Day (4.2). One truly sobering fact is that 88 people were killed in speed-related automobile accidents during 2017, with 23 of them occurring between Memorial and Labor Day. This period is dubbed the 100 deadliest days because during this time, 35 percent of all roadway fatalities occur annually. In fact, in Minnesota, between 2012 and 2017, 769 people died due to vehicular accidents—DWI, speeding, failure to wear seat belts, or some other transgression—during that time.

Enhanced education and enforcement

Each year during the summer, a statewide awareness campaign seeks to not only provide extra enforcement but also to educate the public on the problems of drunk—and otherwise reckless—driving. Emphasis is placed on the dangers of driving while intoxicated, and police and other safety groups provide tips as to how to improve safety for everyone during this busy time.

Thus—just like each previous year—authorities are planning to increase statewide enforcement efforts leading up to Labor Day with many officers working overtime in order to identify and apprehend drunk drivers.

A word on motorcycles

The summer is also the time for a spike in motorcycle fatalities with speed and alcohol touted as the most cited reason for said accidents. Thus far this year, 24 motorcyclists perished on Minnesota roads—compared with only 22 last year at this time. Compounding the problem is that of these fatalities, only six were wearing helmets.

Law enforcement officials stress that motorcycle riders should, in addition to wearing DOT-approved helmets, don additional brightly colored protective gear to make them more visible while on the road. Essentially, motorcycle riders should be proactive about their own safety, ride sober, follow all rules particular speed limits, and be extra aware of road hazards including inattentive drivers, unexpected road conditions, and other dangers. Another highly touted recommendation is for motorcycle riders to take a training course in order to improve riding skills and learn life-saving maneuvers that may save their others’ lives if necessary.

Similarly, other motor vehicle drivers should be equally cognizant of motorcyclists, be extra aware of their presence, and share the road with them.

Just don’t do it

Of particular concern is the plethora of ride-sharing programs available which frustrates law enforcement officers when drunk individuals decide to get behind the wheel instead of taking advantage of the options. Given the serious criminal and administrative sanctions for DWIs in Minnesota, it is puzzling why so many people would take that risk.

Currently, one-in-seven Minnesotans have a DWI, and statewide, law enforcement officers make 30,000 DWI-related arrests each year.

The solution is truly an easy one: don’t get behind the wheel if drunk, don’t speed, pay attention to other motorists, and wear a seat belt. Doing so will dramatically reduce the number of tragic accidents and fatalities.