Late night fast food and impaired driving appear to have at least a small amount of correlation. Though a greasy burger might sound great after a few drinks, it’s critical to have a sober person do the driving. In the past few weeks alone, officers have arrested several drivers across the country after they drunkenly maneuvered their way through drive-thru lanes. Read More...

A recent article published in the Journal of Applied Remote Sensing indicated that in the not-so-distant future, police officers could have a new and very powerful tool to help fight drunk driving. A new high-tech laser device has been shown useful in detecting the presence of alcohol vapor. What makes the device truly amazing is that it can work even when aimed at moving vehicles. Read More...

The horrible accident this past weekend that claimed the life of one comedian, Jimmy McNair, and left Tracy Morgan in critical condition has been linked to drowsy driving. Experts say the tragic crash reveals how dangerous exhausted driving can be, both for the drivers themselves and for others on the road. Read More...

Criminal expungement is the act of having a judge seal a criminal record so that the general public does not see it or have access to it. This means that although the sealed state court record exists, nobody will be able to view the criminal offense in question—including landlords and prospective employers. Law enforcement and immigration agencies, however, may be able to see these records. Read More...

In Minnesota, driving around with an open container of alcohol in your car is a good way to attract attention from police officers, possible ending in a breath test. However, even those drivers that are found to be sober will still face charges in connection with the open container violation. To find out more about Minnesota’s open bottle law, keep reading. Read More...

In Minnesota, almost all cases of DWI generally have at least some suspended jail time in exchange for probation that lasts as long as the court directs within the guidelines allowed by state law. Therefore, you must fulfill the given probation terms, or else you must return to jail to complete your original jail sentence. If the court deems it necessary, long-term monitoring may be required – even if time has already been spent behind bars.

There are numerous types of long-term monitoring in the state, and these are usually dependent on the specific Minnesota county in which the conviction takes place, the county’s available resources, and what the court feels is appropriate for the situation. Some examples of these monitoring programs are:

Read More...

The good news is that in the state of Minnesota, plea bargaining for a DWI is an option. Not all criminal matters, after all, need to reach trial. Plea bargains usually cover areas such as sentence duration, modification of charge, and the dismissal of other charges that the defendant might face. If you plead guilty to a lesser charge in this state, then you may just be granted a reduced sentence or charge for your DWI case. Your attorney may plead you down to a reckless driving or wet reckless driving offense.

In Minnesota, there are generally two types of pleas commonly entered: Guilty pleas and Alford pleas . A guilty plea means that defendant admits to committing the crime, while an Alford plea means the defendant pleads guilty without admitting to the facts which constitute the crime and accepts the subsequent sentence/punishment. This form of plea generally means that the defendant is not admitting to the crime, but agrees that the evidence is such that there is a strong likelihood hood they would be found guilty if the matter proceeded to trial.  Furthermore, the defendant, to avoid the risk of losing out on a plea agreement, pleads guilty to avoid the risk of trial.

Of course, whether or not an attorney will be able to plead you down to a lesser offense greatly depends on the presence of any aggravating factors – such as if you have any prior DWI offenses or if there was an underage passenger in the vehicle at the time of the DWI arrest.

A DWI plea bargain may be an attractive option for you if you do not want to risk taking the case to trial and losing. While a trial outcome can be unpredictable, a plea bargain provides both the defense and the prosecution some form of control over the case’s result.

On the side of the prosecution, a plea bargain means being able to save time and money, as well as securing a conviction. On the side of the defendant, a plea bargain means increasing the chances of receiving a lesser sentence. The prosecution may just agree to drop some charges and reduce the seriousness of the crime. The prosecution may also agree to a particular sentence and make it part of the agreement, and recommend this sentence to the judge during sentencing. In some instances, the prosecutor may agree to recommend probation instead of jail time.

Of course, the judge does not have to agree to a plea agreement, regardless of the promises of the prosecution to the defendant. If the judge accepts the plea, however, the outcome is final. In most instances though, prosecutors tend to have the trust of the judges.

Keep in mind that the legal services of a good DWI attorney can greatly affect the outcome of your case. An attorney may be able to bring up several defenses that will successfully plead you to a lesser offense.

The case began in 2011 when Axelberg and her husband got into an argument while camping in rural Minnesota. The two had been drinking when Axelberg’s husband became violent and attacked her. After watching as her husband smashed her cellphone, Axelberg says she feared for her life and ran to hide in the car. Her husband pursued her and began pounding on the windshield, trying to get in the vehicle.

Axelberg says at that point she felt she had no choice but to drive away to safety and call the police. She drove a little over a mile down the road to a nearby convenience store where she called the authorities. To her surprise, the officers arrested not only her husband, but her as well, on drunk driving charges for her mile-long drive to call for help.

Though Axelberg’s DWI charges were ultimately dropped to careless driving, she had her license suspended for six months, something Axelberg felt set a dangerous precedent for other women who might be victims of domestic violence. As a result, she and her Minnesota drunk driving attorney appealed the matter, ultimately all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Axelberg argued that she should be able to use what’s known as the necessity defense as an excuse for her drunk driving. The necessity defense is claimed when a person argues that emergency circumstances existed that meant they had no choice to break the law, usually when their life or the lives of others close to them are threatened.

The Supreme Court, in a very contentious decision, sided against Axelberg. The Court voted 4-3 that her license suspension was valid and that the necessity defense could not be claimed under current Minnesota implied-consent law. The majority held that the current implied-consent law makes clear that any revocation hearing will be limited to discussion of only 10 issues, and the necessity defense does not appear on that list.

Additionally, the majority said that the necessity defense has historically only been used in criminal cases. In this case, Axelberg’s license suspension is not a criminal matter, but instead an administrative decision.

The dissenting justices were vehement in their disagreement, saying that majority opinion created a dangerous precedent where some women might have to choose between their own safety and drunk driving charges. Justice Alan Page wrote that the decision meant that victims of other crimes, such as sexual assault, kidnapping or other forms of physical violence would similarly be put in a position to choose between their own welfare and committing a crime.

The hope of many is that the Minnesota legislature takes up the issue and modifies existing laws to allow for exceptions in extraordinary cases like Axelberg’s.

Source:  Article by David Chanen, published at StarTribune.com.

State Representative Elaine Nekritz chose to sponsor the legislation, dubbed a “redemption bill,” after she says a man from her district reached out to her with his story. The man explained that after his fourth DWI conviction and the permanent loss of his driver’s license, he slowly began to put his life back together. The man started attending church, sought treatment for his alcohol addiction, began attending AA regularly, married and has begun working a stable job. After years of sobriety, the man says he would love the chance to get his driving privileges restored, believing he has been fully rehabilitated.

Nekritz agreed that the man had changed and decided that permanently barring repeat drunk drivers from ever driving again makes little sense. Once a person has repaid their debt to society they should be given the opportunity to rejoin that society and driving is a critical component of such a reintegration.

The redemption bill will not allow all repeat offenders to get their licenses back, only those who are willing to jump through multiple hoops to prove they have truly changed. The law says that a person would need to wait at least five years after their last DUI conviction, complete a rehabilitation program, test clean and sober for at least three full years and then apply to the state to issue a new driver’s license. If all these hurdles are cleared, the person would need to do one more thing; purchase an ignition interlock device to monitor their blood alcohol content for life.

So far, some legislators have come out against the measure, but many others have embraced it. While Mothers Against Drunk Driving has said it is opposed to the measure, another national anti-drunk driving group is in favor of it. The Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists has said that the measure supports a broader goal of rehabilitating those with serious alcohol problems and that if a driver can prove they have changed then it’s good to give them a chance to do so legally.

This last argument is what has mobilized so much support in the Illinois legislature. Many lawmakers have been convinced that providing a path for repeat offenders to legally get their licenses reinstated and then be monitored for the foreseeable future is a far better option than to turn a blind eye on the fact that many without licenses continue driving illegally, dramatically increasing the danger to innocent motorists.

So far the bill has passed a House panel on a unanimous 15-0 vote. Backers say they expect the measure to go up for a full vote of the chamber by the end of the month. You can bet that advocates on both sides of the issue will closely watch the outcome of the vote, something that could lead to similar changes in other states if it proves effective.

Source: “Bill would give chronic drunken drivers another chance,” by Maura Zurick, published at ChicagoTribune.com.