Undoubtedly, the hottest topic of discussion in DWI law across Minnesota and much of the nation is Bernard v. Minnesota.[1] Consolidated with Birchfield v. North Dakota and Beyund v. Levi, the United States Supreme Court just set Bernard’s oral argument for April 20, 2016. SCOTUS squeezed Bernard in as one of Its last remaining cases…

Recently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) renewed its push to lower the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit in drunk driving cases to .05. Currently, the legal limit is .08 in all fifty states, but many countries across the globe use .05. Critics believe the push to .05 is backed by ignition interlock industry, which…

What happens to DWI cases in Minnesota while we await SCOTUS’s decision in Bernard?[1] Will judges be willing to stay all DWI cases until SCOTUS issues an opinion? Or, stay just DWI Refusal cases since that is what Bernard entails? Will judges force defense counsel to litigate the issue and force the losing party to…

Do you trust the accuracy of a cop’s breath test machine? Do you have faith the state’s crime lab will properly handle and analyze your blood or urine sample? In the age of second guessing police procedures around the clock, Minnesota already provides the right to second guess your alcohol concentration level determined by the…

“I heard if you suck on a penny it will neutralize the alcohol you drank and you can beat a breath test. Maybe it was a quarter. Or, a dime. I can’t remember. If you are about to get busted for DWI, just grab whatever change you can find and throw it in your mouth.”…

“[I]t was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had…

“The days of the far-off future would toil onward, still with the same burden for her to take up, and bear along with her, but never to fling down; for the accumulating days and added years would pile up their misery upon the heap of shame.”[1] Hester Prynne’s heap of shame in The Scarlet Letter…

In the wake of Axelberg v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, the legislature decided to expand the scope of defenses available for implied consent hearings.[1] Now, a person may raise the common law affirmative defense of necessity in an implied consent hearing (Minn. Stat. 169A.53, subd. 3(b)(11); subd. 3(h)).[2] This means: did the person act out…

Page 2 of 2 1 2

© 2021 AMBROSE LAW FIRM, PLLC | ST. PAUL, MN

.

STAY CONNECTED WITH US: