Gun laws have been a salient topic in this day and age. While similarities may ensue, each state has its own set of laws with respect to possession, concealed carry, and types of weapons permitted. Read More...

U.S. Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Tom Udall (D-NM) are planning to propose new legislation mandating that automakers install hardware designed to stop drunk drivers from operating their vehicles and preventing thousands of drunk-driving-related accidents, injuries, and deaths. They plan to have this accomplished by the mid-2020’s. This bill is similar to one introduced by Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI) that seeks to accomplish the same goals by 2024. Read More...

Earlier this year, the Minnesota legislature amended the existing definition of hemp, thus altering the legal status of hemp-derived CBD products. CBD products include oils, topicals, and edibles and are highly available not only in Minnesota but across the US. Read More...

Minnesota, like much of the rest of the country, has set its maximum blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at .08 for a DWI. Because it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if any amount of alcohol has impaired the driver’s abilities regardless of said driver’s BAC, in some cases, drivers may still be charged with drunk driving even if their BAC is under the legal limit. Read More...

Whereas many people—including some DWI defense attorneys—mistakenly believe that a person cannot be charged with DWI if police obtain a breath, blood, or urine sample beyond this two-hour stipulation, in some cases, prosecutors can calculate a motorist’s BAC at the time of driving through retrograde extrapolation. Retrograde extrapolation is a scientific guessing of sorts of someone’s BAC at an earlier point in time.

Reasons for delays in obtaining BAC measurements

Even though two hours seems to be a long time, most DWI BAC tests are conducted more than two hours after the motorist was stopped. Reasons for these delays include:

• The time needed to conduct field sobriety tests and preliminary breath test
• The time for the initial stop
• The time taken to wait for a tow truck for the suspect’s vehicle, if necessary
• The time taken to make contact with a suspect who has already arrived at another location
• The time needed to transport the suspect to the police department, hospital, or other testing location
• The time necessary to complete a search warrant application and obtain said warrant
• Extra time in cases where the breath test machine malfunctions

The science behind retrograde extrapolation

Whereas there is some

scientific evidence Read More...

Recently, in Jensen v. State Commissioner of Public Safety, the Minnesota Court of Appeals was tasked with answering the question of whether the district court erred by denying the petitioner’s petition to reinstate her driver’s license in light of the fact that the deputy who arrested her failed to warn her that test refusal is a crime. Read More...

The impetus for this law arose from the impediment that a slow-moving vehicle causes to normal traffic flow—and the increased potential for road rage occurrences. Police troopers would have the discretion to determine whether to issue citations or warnings to slowpoke drivers. Included in the omnibus transportation bill, this law seeks to address the harm to the flow of traffic motorists driving even a few miles below the speed limit in the left lane have been shown to cause, according to the bill’s author House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt (R-31A). The Senate’s version of this bill was introduced by Senator John Jasinski (R-Faribault).

Prior to this law, simple courtesy dictated whether slower drivers would move from the left lane to the right. Now, however, it is law that applies to drivers on any freeway and two-lane road. For single-lane roads, slow moving drivers must move as close to the shoulder or curb as “practicable” to let other vehicles pass; however, many drivers continued to impede the fast lanes, particularly on more rural stretches of roadways between metropolitan cities.

Penalties

As mentioned, police now have the discretion under the law to issue tickets to slowpoke drivers. These drivers can now be assessed a $50 ticket plus a $75 surcharge for a $125 fine per occurrence. Tickets will only be issued to those motorists who are impeding the speed of other drivers in the left lane and fail to move over to the right to let them pass.

Exemptions to the law

The law is not applicable to vehicles that are in a left-hand highway exit, vehicles that are turning left on a four-lane expressway, and vehicles in a specifically designated left-hand lane such as a carpool lane. Emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances are also exempt.

Other concerns

Further, as is sometimes misinterpreted, this law does not permit motorists to increase speed in the left lane. Speed limits still apply; however, accelerating to five miles per hour over the speed limit specifically to pass another vehicle is acceptable.

Essentially, if someone is driving the speed limit in the left lane, then there is no reason to merge right to let other vehicles pass. Instead, this law is intended for those vehicles who are traveling under the speed limit in the left lane which must merge right to let vehicles behind them pass.

Additionally, once a driver passes traffic in the left lane, s/he should move back over.

Lawmakers stress that they do not advocate tailgating behind slowpokes who may be driving in the left lane. Instead, they suggest calling the police if the slowpoke driver is causing any traffic issues and let officers handle the situation. Lawmakers also stress not trying to enforce others’ speeds by staying in the left lane to slow down speeders. Again, let the police handle any potential problems.

The case, State v. Rosenbush, revolved around the defendant, Jennifer Rosenbush, who crashed her car into a ditch in Dakota County in July 2017. Following the accident, Rosenbush—who was suspected of being under the influence—was taken to a hospital where she was served with a search warrant ordering her blood to be taken and tested for intoxication.

At the time, the officer did not provide Rosenbush the opportunity to consult with an attorney.

Background of the case

Rosenbush’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .113%–well above the legal limit in the state—and she was charged with misdemeanor 4th degree DWI. If she refused the test, however, she would have been charged with a gross misdemeanor.

Even if Rosenbush did, in fact, contact an attorney, her choices would have been exactly the same: either submit to the testing and receive a lesser charge or refuse and face a more serious one under the state’s implied consent law.

Rosenbush filed to suppress the test results, stating that she was denied access to counsel, and the district court agreed. The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, and the case made it to the state’s high court.

Court rationale

In a 4-3 decision, the State Supreme Court held that a motorist suspected of DWI is not constitutionally entitled to consult with an attorney prior to submitting to a search warrant for a blood sample because a search warrant is provided by a “neutral judicial officer [who] has determined that the police may lawfully obtain a sample of the driver’s blood.”

In prior cases, the Supreme Court has held that defendants have the right to legal counsel at critical prosecutorial stages including pretrial procedures, and that a request for BAC testing under the state’s implied consent law was, in fact, a critical stage. Thus, suspects do have a limited right to consult with an attorney at this stage.

However, this case is different in that police had a search warrant which is now required for blood or urine tests, and the majority held that the Minnesota Constitution has never provided the subject of a search warrant the right to consult with an attorney before a warrant can be executed. Quite simply, a search warrant for a driver’s blood sample is no different than a search warrant for potential evidence at a home or other property. If the court ordered a search—and provided a warrant—nobody has the right to refuse said search and potential seizure.

Dissent

The three dissenting justices asserted that a motorist’s decision whether to submit to a chemical test and provide potentially incriminating evidence or refuse to submit and be subject to the state’s implied consent law is a decision that requires consulting with a neutral party, not a police officer. Thus, forcing the motorist to submit to the test in the warrant violated his/her constitutional rights. Justice Natalie Hudson stated that the mere presence of a search warrant does not simply alleviate concerns about the potential legal ramifications of deciding to submit or refusing to do so.

Of course, officers could provide DWI suspects the opportunity to contact a lawyer if they so desired, but the law doesn’t require it.

The impetus for the new law is, first and foremost, to make the roads safer. Other states that have enacted hands-free laws have enjoyed a 15-percent decrease in traffic-related fatalities due to cell phone distractions per National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data.

Specifics of the law

Under the law, motorists may use their cell phones in limited capacity while driving: specifically, to make calls, text, get directions, or listen to music and podcasts only by voice commands or single-touch activation. They may not hold the phone while driving, nor can they use their phone for video calling, live streaming, gaming, Snapchat, using non-navigation apps, or looking at text or photos on the phone.

The only time a motorist can handle his/her phone is to obtain emergency assistance. Authorized emergency responders working in their official capacity may also hold their phones if performing official duties.

Stopping on the shoulder of a freeway or controlled access highway to use one’s phone is already illegal in the state. Similarly, doing so along a US or state highway or county road is not recommended. Instead, finding a safe place to pull off the road completely such as a gas station to use one’s phone is highly recommended.

Other concerns

Drivers may not pick up and use their phones while at a stoplight because, technically, they are still operating the vehicle.

The law does not specifically ban voice-to-text; however, some lawmakers have voiced their concerns because there’s not way to prove whether a text was sent via voice or manually.

Under the law, it is not illegal to secure a phone in a headscarf, hijab, or wrap; however, to do so, the phone must be secure enough to neither obstruct the driver’s view nor require the driver to hold the phone.

The new law also views smart watches as electronic communications devices and may only be used as a conventional watch or in the same manner as a cell phone provided any function accessed is by voice activation or one-touch.

Finally, the new law exempts two-way, amateur, and citizens band (CB) radios as they are not classified as electronic messages. Nevertheless, users are still required to use them safely and prudently.

Penalties

A first ticket for violating the new hands-free law is $50 plus court fees. Second and subsequent citations increase the fine by $225, for a total of $275 plus court fees.

Tips for complying with the law

Granted, the best way to comply with this law is to turn off your phone and place it out of sight while driving or turn on its do-not-disturb mode. If you need to have your phone available, then a properly utilized phone mount is a good idea.

Other tips include:

Read More...

Effective July 1, 2019, Minnesota’s new DWI vehicle forfeiture law (Sec. 4, Subd. 13) went into effect and now favors vehicle owners. This law is a game changer in the current forfeiture climate in that drivers will be able to get their vehicles back if they agree to install an ignition interlock device (IID) on their vehicle before the forfeiture procedure is finalized. Read More...