What happens if a DWI suspect submits to a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test but that test is completed several hours after arrest? Whereas Minnesota law criminalizes a motorist who is driving with a BAC of .08 or more at the time of driving—”or as measured within two hours of the time of driving, operating, or being in physical control” of a vehicle—it is still possible to obtain a conviction if the test was conducted after this two hour window. 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...

Drug-free zone laws are among the longest running sentencing policies in the US. These laws were enacted during the early 1980s as part of the “War on Drugs” during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic and were designed to increase penalties on those offenders who committed drug crimes in areas near children-heavy areas. Read More...

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), misuse of prescription drugs involves taking dosages in a manner other than prescribed, using another person’s prescription, or taking a prescription medication in order to reach a “high.” With a steady increase in drug prescriptions—especially for opioids—the potential for misuse and abuse is even greater.

There are three classes of prescription medications that are most commonly misused: opioids, depressants, and stimulants. Opioids include pain relievers such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. Depressants include such drugs as tranquilizers, hypnotics, and sedatives. Stimulants include ADD/ADHD treatments and prescription diet pills.

Statistics

Over the past 15 years, prescription drug misuse and abuse have increased as evidenced by more emergency room visits, treatment admissions for addiction, and overdose deaths, the latter of which have increased nationwide five-fold since 1999. Further, prescription opioid abuse alone carries with it a high price tag—more than $78 billion in lost work, healthcare, crime, and productivity.

In Minnesota alone, opioids are a serious problem, thus resulting in more than 400 opioid-related deaths in 2018 alone.

Nationwide, in 2016, opioids were responsible for two thirds of the nearly 64,000 overdose deaths and opioid abuse has been blamed as the primary responsibility for lowering life expectancy in the US over the past few years.

Many experts assert the opioid crisis isn’t just opioids. Both illicit and legal prescription drugs have contributed to the problem; however, prescription opioid use has increased exponentially over the past few years and has received the lion’s share of attention in legislative and medical efforts to combat the problem.

Minnesota prescription drug crimes and penalties

Pursuant to

Minnesota law Read More...

Earlier in June, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) issued a significant recall of blood alcohol testing kits provided by manufacturer Becton Dickinson (BD) causing speculation over whether thousands of DWI cases will subsequently be thrown out in court. In fact, BD initially issued the voluntary recall. Read More...

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), there are nearly 30 traffic fatalities daily due to drunk driving. In 2017 alone, nearly 11,000 deaths were attributed to drunk driving crashes at a cost of more than $44 billion. The same goes for distracted driving in which individuals who text or check emails while driving are eight times more likely to be involved in an automobile accident.

Several vehicle manufacturers—especially Volvo—have introduced new technologies in their vehicles to help eradicate this ongoing problem.

Volvo—A leader in safety

Volvo has always been among the industry leaders in terms of safe vehicles; however, the company is taking an additional step by installing active technology to combat drunk and distracted drivers. Such technology includes in-car cameras that are able to evaluate and monitor drivers’ actions and identify whether a driver is impaired.

The specifics are not currently known; however, these cameras will be able to identify drivers who close their eyes or direct them away from the road for extended periods of time while also identifying erratic steering, excessively slow reaction times, extreme weaving and lane changes, or other clues that a driver may be impaired and/or otherwise distracted. If impairment or distraction is identified, Volvo says that several warnings and/or automatic responses could take effect such as limiting the vehicle’s speed, making the car stop safely, or notifying Volvo’s On Call service who could dispatch police and or medical personnel.

Volvo reports that this technology could be installed in its new vehicles in the early 2020s in addition to other new technology to limit speeds on its vehicles to 112 mph (180 km/hr).

Other manufacturers

Nissan has introduced a drunk-driving prevention concept car as well with new alcohol odor high-sensitivity sensors being built into the transmission shift knob to detect alcohol in a driver’s hand perspiration as s/he starts driving. If the detected alcohol is above a predetermined level, the vehicle locks the transmission so the car cannot be driven. Other sensors are also used throughout the driver’s and passenger seats in order to detect the presence of alcohol in the air inside of the car. If alcohol is detected, the vehicle issues voice and navigation system alerts.

Nissan is also investigating the use of in-vehicle cameras to monitor the driver’s face as well as other systems that can identify distracted or impaired driving behaviors and notify the driver via seatbelt tightening mechanisms or other audio/visual notifications.

Other manufacturer efforts

A consortium of automakers is investigating other potentially life-saving onboard technologies such as special touch pads in push-to-start buttons and steering wheels, on-board ignition interlock devices (IID), and air sensors to identify whether a driver is under the influence. Of course, these devices must be “

highly accurate, very fast, and completely passive Read More...