Court of Appeals Update: State v. Mike (Decided August 27, 2018)
The defendant in State v. Mike was in a motorcycle accident in October of 2017 (DWI Law). When officers arrived at the scene, they believed that Mike may have been under the influence of alcohol. En route to the hospital, law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for Mike’s blood. Officers executed the search warrant at the hospital and Mike’s blood alcohol concentration was a 0.23. Mike succeeded at the district court level by arguing that the state did not adhere to the requirements in the recently enacted DWI law and the judge dismissed his case. This appeal by the state followed.
Call for a Free DWI Consultation
Every call will be connected to an attorney. Call us today at (651) 829-3572 or click below to schedule an appointment.
A Minnesota state law that took effect on July 1, 2017 (see MN Stat. § 171.177 subd. 1) placed new requirements on law enforcement when executing a search warrant for a suspected DWI offender’s blood or urine: 1) law enforcement must inform the individual that refusal to submit to a chemical test is a crime; and 2) before submitting to testing the individual must be offered an opportunity to speak with an attorney. In Mike’s case, law enforcement did not inform him of either option. Thus, Mike was asking the court to suppress the results of the test since the state did not follow the statute when executing the search warrant.
The court of appeals, however, interpreted the relevant statute to apply only during license revocation proceedings. Since this was the criminal proceeding, the court reasoned that law enforcement officers were merely executing a valid search warrant for Mike’s blood—no different than any other criminal investigation. Had the state tried to use the results of the blood test to revoke Mike’s driver’s license, as is often the practice during a traditional DWI, the officers would have had to strictly adhere to the statutory requirements. Since the state was not using the results of the blood test to revoke Mike’s driving privileges and were instead using the results of the blood test as evidence that he was over the legal limit of 0.08, the court of appeals overturned the district court and reopened his criminal case. It’s important to understand that this decision is limited to criminal cases. If the state intends to use evidence of the blood test to revoke your driver’s license prior to a hearing, they must still read the implied consent advisory.
Free DWI Consultations
Every call will be connected to an attorney. Call us today at (651) 829-3572 or click below to schedule an appointment.
CALL NOW TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY
What does Mike’s case mean for future DWIs? Well, as is the case for many court of appeals and supreme court cases, you should be in contact with an experienced DWI attorney that is well versed in the ever-changing landscape that is the practice of law. An attorney can only be effective if he or she is up to date with the case law. The attorneys at Leverson Budke P.A. pride themselves on being able to take advantage of new case law as soon as it becomes available while also being aware of new case law that would not be helpful in litigation. Mike’s case is one of many that are currently being litigated and changing the practice of DWI in the state of Minnesota. Your attorney is only as informed as the most recent case that he or she has read. Contact the knowledgeable attorneys at Leverson Budke P.A. today for up to date information on Minnesota DWI case law.