Minneapolis Criminal Law News

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Against Innocent Spouse under DWI Car Forfeiture Statute

December 17, 2009 · 5 Comments

Today the Minnesota Supreme Court released a decision interpreting a Minnesota Statute in a way to deprive an innocent spouse of their legal right to keep their car, jointly owned by a spouse who drove it in violation of a law.   The Case, David Lee Laase  vs 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, A07-2023, December 17, 2009, was another 4-3 split and splintered decision – with the majority reversing the Minnesota Court of Appeals, to rule against the civil property rights of the individual (Justices Lorie S. Gildea, Eric J. Magnuson, G. Barry Anderson and Christopher J. Dietzen in the majority, with Dissents from Justices Paul H. Anderson, Alan C. Page and Helen M. Meyer.) 

Divorce to Protect Your Property?

The court’s majority held that “innocent owner defense” in Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) (2008), does not apply in a case of joint ownership of a vehicle if one of the joint owners is also the offender causing forfeiture of the vehicle.   

The majority’s new rule is that all joint owners of a motor vehicle must be innocent in order for any owner to employ the innocent owner defense in Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d).  

As Justice Paul Anderson points out in his dissent, 

“The context of the case before us involves a DWI forfeiture statute that contemplates both the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize and forfeit motor vehicles used in the commission of designated offenses and protection for innocent motor vehicle owners. Thus, the context within which we must conduct our analysis is a disfavored forfeiture statute that we must strictly construe which means that if we have any doubt about the application of the statute, that doubt is to be resolved in favor of joint owner … .” 

The case involves Minnesota’s DWI forfeiture statute which creates both a presumption that a person arrested for suspected DWI will forfeit their car to the State; and also contains an affirmative defense for innocent owners of cars driven by someone else arrested for suspected DWI.  What about the case where a car is jointly owned by two or more people, such as the family car that the non-offending spouse needs to get to work? 

Justice Page concludes his dissent with: 

“I would construe the word ‘owner’ to refer to each individual owner throughout section 169A.63. Thus, under subdivision 7(d), a vehicle is not subject to forfeiture if any of its owners can demonstrate that he or she, individually, did not know the vehicle would be used contrary to law. Similarly, under subdivision 7(d), it is up to each of the owners to demonstrate that he or she ‘took reasonable steps to prevent use of the vehicle by the offender.’ An owner that can make the required showing cannot be divested of his or her interest in the vehicle, which subdivision 1(h) instructs extends to the whole of the vehicle. Because Mr. Laase made the required showing, I would hold that his interest in the vehicle is not subject to forfeiture.” 

Is this another bad 4-3 splintered decision, with the slim majority again ruling against the rights of the individual?  So it would seem.  At least in this unjust situation, the Minnesota legislature could fix it next legislative session by amending the statute the court was interpreting.

Will the legislature repair this injustice in the law?  Public anger has been building for years over the use of asset forfeiture laws to legally steal private property, with the excuse of some crime having been committed, or the possibility of one.  The most frequent use of these laws has been in the areas of Minnesota asset forfeitures in drug cases, and in DWI cases.  Most of the injustices in these laws are common to all types of asset forfeiture statutes (whether based upon drugs, DWI or prostitution).  The innocent owner issue is only one of many. 

One of these issues is the conflict of interest created by allowing the law enforcement agency which legally steals the property from the citizen, to keep much of the money proceeds from that seizure and forfeiture.  Two of the Justices concurring with the majority in David Lee Laase  vs 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe highlighted the issue, in Justice Barry Anderson’s concurrence: 

“[T]here is reason to question the balance struck by the legislature between various competing interests.  For example, given the general disfavor of forfeiture statutes, the wisdom of vesting the right to possession of a forfeited vehicle in the law enforcement agency responsible for the arrest of a defendant and the forfeiture of a defendant‘s vehicle is not immediately evident. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.63, subds. 1(b), 2, and 3 (2008).  But such issues are for the legislature to address, not this court.“ 

Justice Gildea wrote the 4-3 majority opinion.  However, only one other justice joined her opinion, Magnuson.  The two concurring Justices wrote, in essence, that the law  was unfair and should be changed - but by the legislature not the court (see quote above).  The three dissenting Justices also noted the serious unfairness of the statute as interpreted by the majority opinion.  Therefore five of the seven essentially agreed on one thing – the statute allowing the government to take the private property of an innocent spouse or other co-owner is unfair and should be changed. 

This issue was referenced in a recent article in the Star Tribune newspaper, Crime fighters gone rogue, where a  leader of the Minnesota Gang Strike Force explained in relation to financial stress due to underfunding form the legislature, he: 

“… turned in 2003 to the only major source of cash he could find: money seized from suspected drug dealers, gang members and other targets. Over the next two years, Ryan told state examiners, his unit survived on virtually nothing else. 

‘We had no money and we were begging, borrowing and I hesitate to say stealing, that would be the wrong place, but … that’s the way we were operating,’ Ryan said, according to a transcript of his formal interview with the Legislative Auditor’s Office.” 

Is it fair to law enforcement officers to create laws like this with inherent conflicts of interest - inciting them to take from the poor, and give to their own agency of the government?  Can a normal human be completely immune to such powerful temptations?  Why should Minnesota laws encourage such mischief upon the individual people of Minnesota? 

Let’s see if the Minnesota legislature will reform forfeiture laws in Minnesota this year. 

By Thomas C. Gallagher, a Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer.

→ 5 CommentsCategories: Bad Court Decisions · Constitutional Rights · Minneapolis DWI Lawyer · Minnesota Criminal Law · Minnesota DWI Law · Minnesota laws · Search and Seizure Law · Takings clause · asset forfeiture · double jeopardy · due process - property deprivation
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

The Trial of Jesus: A Criminal Law Perspective

December 3, 2009 · 4 Comments

The Trial of Jesus is the most famous trial in history - really, two trials.  From a criminal law perspective, the trials are fascinating for many reasons, on many levels.  This article is based upon a book The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth by Law Professor Max Radin published by the University of Chicago Press in 1931.  Radin brings a lawyer’s eye to the historical record, from Christian, Roman, and Jewish sources, as well as succinctly developing the context.  A few areas of interest to be discussed here include: 
  • The Snitch identifies Jesus and betrays him, but later refuses to testify.
  • Prosecutor asks “why would they lie?”
  • Jesus pleads the Fifth
  • The Witness Corroboration Rule more stringent then, than now
  • Politics influences criminal law
  • Death Penalty for slaves and foreigners, not Romans
 The most credible Christian Gospel and likely the oldest written is “Mark.”  His account contains the most attention to detail and reflects the best understanding of the laws and procedures of the both the Jewish local government and the superior Roman government.  Although “Mark” shows the best understanding and most detail about the trials, his writings make clear his motive: to persuade the reader that Jesus was innocent of any crime a person could be convicted of in a Jewish court.
 
But is it so?  Deuteronomy 18:20 appears to prescribe a death penalty for “the prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak…”  This crime of false prophesy may have been the statute prosecuted at the first Trial of Jesus, before the Sanhedrin – a group of political leaders acting as a court in Judea.   

Witnesses Against Jesus

The Witness Corroboration Rule.

 Mark tells us: “And the chief priests and all the council, sought for witnesses against Jesus to put him to death; and found none.”

“For many bore false witness against him but their witnesses agreed not together”

“We had heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days, I will build another made without hands.”

“But neither so did their witness agree together.”

Prosecutor asks “Why would they lie?”  Jesus Pleads the Fifth.

Mark continues:  “And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing?  What is it which these witness against thee?”

“But he held his peace, and answered nothing.”

Minnesota abandons the ancient Witness Corroboration Rule – a protection for the innocent.

Jewish law at the time required a conviction based upon a witnesses claims to be corroborated by other witnesses – to “agree together.”  Roman law did also, as did the laws of many other ancient civilizations.   This law continued throughout the ages, through English law which was inherited by us in the United States, as Common Law.  Many Common Laws were enacted into statute, including in Minnesota, including this one.  But in the late 20th Century Minnesota Statutes were amended to significantly water down and mostly destroy this ancient legal right, which had long served to protect innocents from false witnesses and false charges.

The Sanhedrin council deliberated then convicted him of the crime a false prophecy, had him bound and delivered to Pilate, the Roman Governor.   As a subject state, the government of Judea at the time did not have the legal authority to execute a death penalty sentence.  Previously, when they had that authority the Sanhedrin had four forms of it – stoning, hanging, burning, and decapitation – but not crucifixion.  Since they lacked the legal power to kill him, they brought Jesus to the Roman Governor Pilate to ask him to do so.  (By this time the death penalty had long been abandoned for Roman citizens.  It was only used against slaves and non-citizen foreigners.)

The Second Trial, to the Roman Governor.

Pilate had the legal authority to execute the Sanhedrin’s death sentence alone (to review the first trial), but chose to conduct another Trial, on a different criminal accusation,  instead.   Jesus was accused at this trial of a political (not religious, as before) crime – that of claiming to be The King of the Jews, a rebel against Roman authority.  The Romans already had a King of the Jews – theirs.  Any challenge to the authority of the Jewish government in Judea was effectively a challenge to Roman authority, since the Jewish King was subjugated to Rome.

As Mark tells us, 15:2:  “And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews?  And he answering, said unto him, Thou sayest it.”

“And the chief priests accused him of many things but he answered nothing.”

“And Pilate asked him again, saying, behold how many things they witness against thee.”

“But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled.”

 The Passover lenity tradition.

 These events took place during the week-long Passover time.  Tradition held that the People should be granted the freedom of a condemned.  A rebel named Bar-Abbas was proposed along with Jesus as a possible candidate for leniency.  Though Bar-Abbas, and not Jesus, was granted leniency by the Roman Governor, the motivation for this is disputed.  The writers of the Christian Gospels seem to want to absolve the Roman Governor and blame the crowd.  But Radin points out that the crowd was indoors, smaller, and included many of those who had convicted him previously, and that Bar-Abbas was popular locally.  Radin also points out that the early Christians were mostly Greek and Roman, not Jewish; and their could have been a motive to slant the story to appeal more to potential Roman converts.  And Christianity did become a religion largely of Rome, not the Middle East.  This part of the story has been characterized as another trial of sorts, like a sentencing trial.  Radin is convincingly skeptical of this idea.  Another misuse of this part of the story has been the efforts of some to make it seem conflict between Christians and Jews, based upon Faith.  But, in reality it was not.  There were few Christians then and many religious leaders with small followings.  It was instead a continuation of the politically motivated killing of a feared rebellion against Roman authority and its local puppet government.

A Parade of Humiliations.

The Roman Governor sentenced Jesus to crucifixion, which included “scourging” before.  But a parade of other humiliations preceded those.   Consistent with his conviction for the crime of claiming to be the King of the Jews, Roman soldiers (most of whom were not from Rome) clothed him in purple, like a king, and put a crown of thorns on his head, then hit him on the head.  They put him back in his old clothes.  They plucked his beard.  They scourged him.  The Roman death penalty of crucifixion caused death because of the scourging – a brutal whipping with objects on the whip strands clawing away skin, flesh and muscle down to the bone.  The scourging was done short of killing the person.  At one time, the scourged person was then bound to a tree, which was later replaced by a timber gallows or Roman cross.  Death was slow and painful and public.  Death was by suffocation.  Sometimes soldiers or passersby took pity on a person hanging on a Roman cross and would give them “vinegar” or a low quality wine with myrrh – to help dull the mind and relieve the pain, and perhaps hasten the death by suffocation.  (The person had to stand on their feet, as hanging by the arms would suffocate them.)  Jesus was made such an offer but refused.

The Romans put a sign over the head of Jesus on the Roman cross saying, “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.”  The crucifixions were done near a road in a public place, as examples of what kind of criminal behaviors people should avoid.  Jesus was crucified near other convicted criminals, as was commonly done along the roadway.  His accusers came to mock him there, challenging him to come down if he really were Messiah.

Radin discusses the Judas story with some skepticism, and provides a basis for that skepticism which you can find in his book.  One observation bears repeating here, however.  Judas was one of the twelve disciples at the Last Supper, of course.  He is said to have betrayed Jesus and become a snitch for the authorities, by identifying him at the time of his arrest (before the trials).  There are differing accounts of what happened with Judas after that.  But, as Radin points out, Judas did not testify against Jesus at either trial - at the religious crime trial, or at the political crime trial.  Criminal lawyers are familiar with this phenomenon, and the various reasons that can sometimes explain it.

Radin’s book is wonderful.  It examines not only the Christian Gospels versions of the trials, written a couple of hundred years after the fact, but also the limited contemporary commentators, about these events.  He explores the historic and political context, which helps us understand what really may have happened – apart from simply accepting the conflicting Gospels at face value.

As criminal lawyers,  we can appreciate the use of criminal laws and trials by the religious and political authorities to put down a threat to their power.  Along the way, we have a snitch who assists the arrest but won’t testify.  We have a highly intelligent accused, without a lawyer, who refuses to answer questions or accusations by witnesses, prosecutors or the authorities.  We have documentation of the ancient right to require witness corroboration of the details of an accusation.  And we have an ancient record of the rejection of the death penalty for civilized people, though not for the less civilized.

Yes, there is much more yet, to this great story which truly brings history to life.  There are also lessons here, for those interested, about criminal law and trials.

By Thomas C Gallagher, Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer.

→ 4 CommentsCategories: Bad Court Decisions · Famous Trials · Legal First Aid · Legal Rights · Search and Seizure Law · pre-charge counsel
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Minnesota Court Waters Down Legal Definition of Illegal Drugs: Toilet Water Now Criminal to Possess

October 23, 2009 · 7 Comments

Water Bong
Water Bong

The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, has now ruled that Bong Water (water which had been used in a water pipe) was a “mixture” of “25 grams or more” supporting a criminal conviction for Controlled Substance crime in the first degree.  The crime is the most serious felony drug crime in Minnesota, with a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison for a first offense.  The case is Minnesota v  Peck, A08-579, Minnesota Supreme Court, October 22, 2009.

 
The majority opinion takes a literal view, arguing in essence that any amount of a substance dissolved in water makes that water a “mixture” containing that substance.  Perhaps.  But, since Minnesota’s criminal prohibition laws are organized to make greater quantities of drug possession a more serious crime than smaller quantities, such a simple-minded view defeats the purpose of the quantity-based severity levels.
 
If a person possessed one-tenth of a gram of methamphetamine, they could be charged with a Controlled Substance Fifth Degree crime, with a five-year maximum.  But - dissolve the one-tenth of a gram in 26 grams of water, on purpose or by accident, and now under this new decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court, that can be prosecuted as Controlled Substance First Degree – with a 30-year prison term.  Just add water for five times the sentence! 
 
In the case of marijuana, a non-criminal amount under 42.5 grams smoked through a bong could give the police and government lawyers the legal right to charge a felony drug crime with possible prison time – not for the marijuana, but for the bong water.
 
This defeats the legislative purpose of treating larger quantities of drugs more harshly.  Worse – it makes no sense.  It is irrational.  It leads to an absurd result.
 
What is a bong?  It is a water pipe.  A water pipe, such as a bong, can be used to smoke tobacco, marijuana, methamphetamine (as in the Peck case), or anything that can be smoked.  Smokers view the water which has been used to filter and cool the smoke as something disgusting, not unlike a used cigarette filter, to be discarded – sooner or later.  The used water is not commonly used for any other purpose.  Apparently a naive or misguided police officer testified otherwise in the Peck case, and – amazingly -the four in the majority of the court appears to have given that testimony credit.
 
In general courts have made efforts to prevent police and government lawyers from having the ability to manipulate the facts or evidence in such a way as to either create criminal liability for targeted people, or, to increase the penalty the target might suffer.  Here is an instance to the contrary. 
 
If the government wants to charge a more serious drug crime – what to do?  Just add water!  (Water is heavy – heavier than drugs.  Drug crimes are based on weight.  Water is not currently defined by law as an illegal drug.)
 
Frequent news reports remind us about the drugs in the rivers and most of our municipal water supplies (not concentrated enough to hurt us, we are reassured).  Type “in water supply” into your favorite internet search engine and you can read thousands of reports of scientific studies documenting this.  As a result, if you have water sourced from a river, like we do in Minneapolis, then you could now be charged with a Minnesota Controlled Substance First Degree Crime (toilets tanks hold way more than 25 grams of water with illegal drugs dissolved).
  
This can be a particularly troubling variation of the trace-drug criminal case, where only a trace of suspected illegal drugs is found.  Trace cases can be problematic, in part because there may not be enough of the suspected material to be tested twice for its chemical identity. The widespread scientific reports of cocaine contamination (in trace amounts) on most United States currency, would be another example of “trace evidence of illegal drugs possession.”
 
 Under the Peck case, we can have a situation of a trace amount of illegal substance “mixed” with water, which is heavy.  Or - we could have a relatively small amount (by weight) of illegal contraband mixed with a large amount of (heavy) water.  Even if you believe some drugs possession should be a crime – should one gram mixed in water be treated the same as one kilogram (1,000 grams) in powder form?
 
What can be done about this particular absurd injustice? 
1.   Ask the legislature to repeal the criminal prohibition laws. 
2.  Remember this case at election time.  Vote!  You can vote for or against Minnesota Supreme Court candidates, including incumbents.  The four Justices who voted for the bad, majority decision were:  Justice G. Barry Anderson, Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson, Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, and Justice Christopher J. Dietzen (four out of seven on the court).
3.  Jury Nullification, or the rule of jury lenity.  Jurors have legal rights to acquit, despite the facts, despite the judges instructions on the law.  Just do it!
3.  Remove all water sourced from rivers from your home and office, including toilets, in the meantime.
 
At least the dissenting opinion, by Justice Paul H. Anderson, joined by Justice Alan C. Page, and Justice Helen M. Meyer, exhibits common sense.  Here is what Justice Paul Anderson wrote in dissent of the majority opinion:

The majority’s decision to permit bong water to be used to support a first-degree felony controlled-substance charge runs counter to the legislative structure of our drug laws, does not make common sense, and borders on the absurd…the result is a decision that has the potential to undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system.

It’s a good read (link at the beginning of this article).  It is shocking that four in the majority could have possibly disagreed with the dissenters.  Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of the 100 year experiment in using criminal blame as a strategy to solve a public health problem. 

It’s time to change the laws.  This absurdity makes it all too clear.
 
Written by Thomas C Gallagher, Minneapolis Drug Lawyer
FFI:  Marijuana Laws in Minnesota 

→ 7 CommentsCategories: Bad Court Decisions · Marijuana legal · Race and Criminal Justice · Racial Profiling · drug laws · drug prohibition · marijuana laws
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How to Know > Do You Need a Criminal Defense Lawyer?

October 11, 2009 · 1 Comment

Do I need a Minnesota Criminal Lawyer?
Do I need a Minnesota Criminal Lawyer?

Do You Need a Lawyer?

When it comes to criminal law, most people have been fortunate never to have ask themselves that question.  We do not expect the unexpected.  How do you know when, “I need a lawyer!”

Value of Keeping Your Public Criminal Records Clean

With no public criminal record, your potential future employers won’t be scared off by a criminal conviction.  You could be disqualified from certain occupational licenses  in the event you were convicted of a crime.   Certain convictions can also result in: loss of civil rights, such as voting and firearms rights; removal and deportation from the U.S.; denial of naturalization; loss of student financial aid; offender registration, and other negative consequences.

For many, the largest, quantifiable impact will be to future income stream.   How can a criminal conviction affect your future income?  If you assume a person is age 30 and will work until 70, that is 40 years. Multiply 40 years times a conservative $10,000 estimated reduction in annual income as the result of a conviction.  That would amount to $400,000.  At eight percent interest per year, that would be over one million dollars in lost income by age 70. I have had clients suffer a $45,000 per year reduction in income while an expungement proceeding was pending in court, so the real number could be in the millions, depending upon career path.

Is Jail or Prison Time Probable if Convicted? 

If you are charged with a serious criminal offense, there may be a threat of jail or even prison time.  Even for minor crimes, jail can be a real threat, when a person has prior convictions.  The maximum possible incarceration term specified in the criminal statute charged is rarely executed.  In felony cases, the Minnesota or Federal Sentencing Guidelines will provide a “presumptive sentence” after based upon the severity level of the offense of conviction and criminal history score.  Though there can be upward or downward departures from the presumptive sentence, it is useful to look at the presumptive sentence. There are also “mandatory minimum” sentencing statutes in Minnesota and United States Statutes which can be cruel, severe, and lengthier than the presumptive guidelines sentence.  It is vital to consult a criminal defense lawyer to discuss these factors. In non-felony, misdemeanor cases, up to one year in jail can be possible in Minnesota cases.

If It Is Important to You, Then It’s Worth Getting the Best Lawyer You Can to Help

For many reasons, it is valuable to prevent a criminal charge, to prevent a criminal conviction, and to prevent a criminal sentence in Minnesota.  The rule is simple.  If it is important, then it is important to have a good lawyer’s help in protecting it.  You and your family are worth a lot.  A good criminal lawyer can help protect your future, and your future income earning potential.  Protect your good name while you can – before it’s too late, before a guilty plea.  (Keep in mind that in order to qualify for a Minnesota expungement someday under Minnesota’s expungement statute, you’ll need to avoid being convicted and avoid a guilty plea – you must plan ahead in order to do so!)

This article was written by Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer  Thomas Gallagher.  Gallagher answers questions about Minnesota law court cases and issues every day, free, over the phone.  He also provides free half-hour office consultations by appointment.  You can give Gallagher a call with your question or to make an appointment at 612-333-1500.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Best Attorneys Minnesota · Legal First Aid · Legal Rights · Minneapolis Best Lawyers · Minneapolis DWI Lawyer · Minnesota Criminal Law · Minnesota Lawyers · minneapolis criminal law · minneapolis criminal lawyer · minnesota defense attorney · pre-charge counsel · top criminal defense lawyers · top-rated minnesota defense attorney
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Midnight DWI Jail Call to a Minnesota Lawyer < Legal First Aid

October 1, 2009 · 1 Comment

phoneIn Minnesota, a person arrested on a police officer’s suspicion of DWI has the legal right to consult a lawyer prior to responding to a request by police to consent to chemical testing.  A problem often arises due to the fact that most of these situations happen in the late night or early morning hours when most people – and most lawyers – are asleep.  Most people who find themselves in this unwelcome circumstance never believed they would be, and may not know a criminal lawyer or DWI defense lawyer to call.

Sometimes they call any Minnesota lawyer they can think of, even though they might not be a criminal lawyer, or DWI defense attorney.  This article is intended to help that lawyer.

If possible, refer the caller to a DWI defense attorney to call.  If that does not work, they should call you back.  Here are some basics for the Minnesota lawyer who does not regularly practice DWI defense.

Understand that the purpose of the phone consultation is to help the caller navigate the legal threats presented by the most lengthy and complex set of criminal laws – the DWI laws in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169A.  

Here is a list:

1.  “Was there a collision or accident?”  If no, go to the next question.  If yes, “do you know if anyone was injured?” and “where are you calling from?”  If there was an alcohol-related injury motor vehicle accident, then the caller may be at risk of a felony Criminal Vehicular Operation (or Criminal Vehicular Homicide) charge.  If that is the case, they may be better off refusing to consent to provide a sample for chemical testing.  There is currently in Minnesota, however, a statute defining such a refusal to consent to such a search – a crime, the crime of “Refusal to Submit to Chemical Testing.”  Though this statute seems unconstitutional, in that it makes a crime out of a refusal to consent to a warrantless search, so far the Minnesota Appellate Courts have upheld it.  As a result, the lawyer should exercise caution, and avoid directly advising the caller in such a situation (likely felony CVO) to “refuse” to consent.  Rather, a Minnesota lawyer can safely advise the caller that “Since refusal is a crime, I can’t advise you to refuse.  A lawyer is prohibited from advising a person to commit a crime.  However a lawyer also has a duty of loyalty to the client, and to explain the legal consequences of your actions.  If you submit a sample for chemical testing that may make it easier for the state to convict you of a felony crime.  If you do not consent to giving a sample that may make it more difficult for them to do so, but could also be used to charge with a gross misdmeanor crime of ‘Refusal.’  The question “where are you now,” is intended to discover whether they are at a police station or a hospital.

2.  “If you consent to the search and provide a sample of breath, blood or urine, be sure to tell the police officer that you want to use the phone to arrange an additional test.”  In Minnesota, a person who consents to a body search by submitting a sample for chemical testing  after a DWI arrest, has the legal right to an “additional test.”  This should always be done, whenever the breath machine report is 0.08 or more, or when a blood ir urine sample is collected by or for police.

Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.51, subd. 7 (b):  The person tested has the right to have someone of the person’s own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a peace officer; provided, that the additional test sample on behalf of the person is obtained at the place where the person is in custody, after the test administered at the direction of a peace officer, and at no expense to the state. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test or tests by a person does not preclude the admission in evidence of the test taken at the direction of a peace officer unless the additional test was prevented or denied by the peace officer.

Though this right is statutory, it is also a way to protect the state’s chemical testing scheme from constitutional challenges for violation of the accused’s right to exculpatory evidence and the state’s duty to preserve it, as in the Trombetta case. 

How can a person get an Additional Test (as the statute calls it)?  The time-honored method was to get someone to come down to the jail with a clean jar, and collect a urine sample, with the best attention to chain of custody issues, to be refrigerated and tested quickly.   Today, the better method in Minnesota is to call Additional Testing, Inc. – a local company that employs contract nurses to go out to jails, properly collect samples, preserve them, and submit them to a lab for chemical testing, with good chain of custody.  If the evidence is exculpatory, they can testify in court as well.  The Additional Testing Right has been held to only require police to allow an in custody person the use of a phone (again) to arrange an Additional Test.  I recommend calling Additional Testing, Inc.:  24-hour Dispatcher:  Phone: (612) 333-3226 or Toll Free: (877) 333-3226.

3.  “Is the searching police officer requesting a breath, blood, or urine sample?”  In Minnesota, the police officer may request any of these but if they request blood, the person cannot be deemed a “Refusal” unless the police officer then requests a urine sample which is then also refused.  Similarly, if urine is requested, the person cannot be deemed a “Refusal” unless the police officer then requests a blood sample which is then also refused.

Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.51, subd. 3:  Type of test.  The peace officer who requires a test pursuant to this section may direct whether the test is of blood, breath, or urine. Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test only if an alternative test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if an alternative test was offered.

This is called the “Alternative Test Right.”  It only applies to blood and urine requests.

4.  Most callers will (a) not have been in a motor vehicle accident, will (b) have no priors, and (c) won’t submit samples that will be claimed to be 0.20 or more alcohol concentration.  These callers will be better off consenting to the search, after consulting a Minnesota lawyer.  Callers not involved in a collision, with priors or 0.20 or more BAC will usually be better off consenting to providing a sample for testing.  The exceptions to that general statement are unusual and beyond the scope of this Legal First Aid article.

5.  After the samples for chemical testing are taken, or the claimed “refusal” is done, police officers normally will read a Miranda Warning and ask questions from an “Alcohol Influence Report” form;thenwrite down and audio record the answers.  Callers should be advised to remain silent, and decline to answer any questions.  (The questions relate to drinking, feeling impaired, origin and destination, etc.)

By:  Thomas Gallagher,  Minneapolis DWI Lawyer

→ 1 CommentCategories: Best Attorneys Minnesota · Coerced Consent · DWI Right to Counsel · Legal First Aid · Legal Rights · Minneapolis Best Lawyers · Minneapolis DWI Lawyer · Minnesota Criminal Law · Minnesota DWI Law · Minnesota Lawyers · Minnesota Super Lawyers · Search and Seizure Law · Traffic Stops · Warrantless Searches · minneapolis criminal law · minneapolis criminal lawyer · minnesota defense attorney · pre-charge counsel · top criminal defense lawyers · top-rated minnesota defense attorney
Tagged: , , , , , , , , , ,

Underage Consumption > Do I Have to Submit a Breath Sample to Police Upon Request in Minnesota?

September 16, 2009 · Leave a Comment

martiniMost people are aware that if a person is driving a motor vehicle in Minnesota, a police officer can in certain circumstances invoke legal authority under a Minnesota Statute to demand the person submit to a search by providing a breath sample for a Portable (or Preliminary) Breath Test (“PBT”) machine.  If the driver refuses, the statute then authorizes arrest for suspicion of DWI.

What about the person under 21 years of age, who is not driving or anywhere near a motor vehicle?  There is no statute or law that requires that young person to consent to a search by providing a breath sample simply because they are walking down the street, or found at a house party, with an odor of an alcoholic beverage about them.  A young person in this position can simply refuse to consent to such a search.  Refusal to submit to a PBT does not give police legal authority to arrest a pedestrian (unlike a driver, in certain circumstances).  Note that although the Minnesota Statute in the DWI Chapter concerning Preliminary Screening Tests (link above) does authorize use of these in underage consumption cases in court, it does not authorize police to “require” a breath sample for a PBT where the person has no connection to a motor vehicle.

An interesting, recent case in Michigan illustrates some of the key points in this type of case, Troy v Chowdhury, Michigan Court of Appeals, September 10, 2009.  There, the City of Troy had enacted an ordinance to allow police to force consent to breath testing of minors, and this was ruled unconstitutional.  The court in that case notes that police did not claim to have obtained consent from the accused, nor did they have a search warrant.  The court also confirms the obvious – when police take a breath sample that is a search.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, in order for police to search a person they must have a search warrant, or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement must a then apply.  Consent can be an exception.  If “consent” is coerced, then it is not real consent.

I know of no statute or local ordinance in Minnesota that gives police legal authority to ”require” a breath sample for alcohol testing (unless in connection with weapons or motor vehicles).  Police often will seek actual consent, or sometimes try to coerce “consent.”  The person (with no weapon, or not in relation to a motor vehicle) faced with such a request from a police officer does not have to consent to such a search or provide a breath sample simply because police want it.

The police and local prosecutors can still charge underage consumption crimes without PBT evidence, based upon other available evidence.  (The most damning are verbal admissionsby the accused.)  Regardless, a person accused of this crime could be expected to have a stronger defense case if they refuse to blow into the PBT and refuse to talk about drinking. 

Other problems commonly occurring with these kinds of cases include criminal charges of giving false information or identity to police, and less often, fleeing.  I know of no law in Minnesota that requires a person to identify themselves to police (except in certain circumstances such as driving, hunting, carrying, etc.)  If a person is not driving, they need not carry a drivers license or other ID.  A person should be careful to avoid giving a false identity to police, which is a worse crime than underage drinking, in the eyes of most.  If a police officer asserts their authority as a police officer, fleeing is a crime in Minnesota, whether in a vehicle or otherwise.

In general, a person suspected of a crime cannot be compelled to talk or provide information, or consent to a search (and this is normally the best approach); however, any information that is provided should be truthful.  When in doubt, seek legal advice from a lawyer before making a statement or consenting to a search.

Author: Thomas Gallagher Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer

→ Leave a CommentCategories: Legal First Aid · Legal Rights · Minnesota Criminal Law · Search and Seizure Law · minneapolis criminal law · minneapolis police
Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

Minnesota Super Lawyers rating awarded to Thomas Gallagher again for 2009

August 9, 2009 · 1 Comment

 
Thomas Gallagher, Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer

Thomas Gallagher, Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer

Minnesota Law & Politics magazine has again awarded Thomas C Gallagher its Minnesota Super Lawyers rating in Criminal Defense for 2009, in its August issue.  This is awarded to the top 5% of lawyers in Minnesota.  Gallagher is grateful to all those who voted for him.

Gallagher, with over 20 years of experience as a Minneapolis Criminal Lawyer, has been awarded this top-rating many times over the years.

For Further Information about other ratings of Thomas Gallagher, click this link: top-rated Minnesota defense attorney.

→ 1 CommentCategories: Minneapolis Best Lawyers · Minnesota Criminal Law · Minnesota Lawyers · Minnesota Super Lawyers · minneapolis criminal law · minneapolis criminal lawyer · top criminal defense lawyers · top-rated minnesota defense attorney
Tagged: , , , , , ,