Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MN Supreme Court Candidate-Valid DWI Defense?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MN Supreme Court Candidate-Valid DWI Defense?

    This Republican candidate for the MN Supreme Court got popped for DWI and test refusal last year. It hasn't gone to court yet.

    In listening to her implied consent recording, the cops continue to ask her if she is refusing the Intox and she continually requests to be brought before a judge immediately. That seems to makes no sense to me since this isn't New York where you have night court.

    However, she appears to be citing 169.91, which lo and behold, does have language in it about taking a DWI arrestee immediately before a judge if they demand it.

    Have you guys ever ran into this before?

    https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169.91

  • #2
    MN Supreme Court Candidate-Valid DWI Defense?

    Originally posted by Long Relief View Post
    .....Have you guys ever ran into this before?.....
    I would have to imagine that there is some case law in which this has been dealt with in the past, but who knows. When I made warrant arrests we would bring the prisoner right to the court, if it was in session. I also would think Rule 4 of the Minnesota Rules Of Criminal Procedure would apply. Maybe "immediate" means being compliant with both the 36 hour rule and the 48 hour rule!

    I agree with what Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McFadden said in a statement, “Given her recent behavior, I’m concerned that Michelle MacDonald does not have the temperament to serve on the Minnesota Supreme Court.”


    http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/...02-01-2013.pdf

    Comment


    • #3
      Not to mention that it would seem an exigency exsists in order to do the intox since during all the corking around trying to find a judge to bring them they could be sobering up and unless the courthouse is attached to an LEC, there wouldn't be an intox around.

      On a DWI side note, a guy told me a trooper pulled him over and he blew just a hair under .08. I don't know what the stop was for. The guy side the Trooper kept him in the car for another 20 minutes or so and then had him blow again. This time he blew a little less and was let go.

      I guess I consider that move (if it happened that way) dirty pool. I am guessing the Trooper was hoping the guy's BAC was still climbing.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Long Relief View Post
        Not to mention that it would seem an exigency exsists in order to do the intox since during all the corking around trying to find a judge to bring them they could be sobering up and unless the courthouse is attached to an LEC, there wouldn't be an intox around.

        On a DWI side note, a guy told me a trooper pulled him over and he blew just a hair under .08. I don't know what the stop was for. The guy side the Trooper kept him in the car for another 20 minutes or so and then had him blow again. This time he blew a little less and was let go.

        I guess I consider that move (if it happened that way) dirty pool. I am guessing the Trooper was hoping the guy's BAC was still climbing.
        I disagree. I think the troop was hoping for exactly what happened. That being for your friend to be far enough under the limit to release. I hate when I stop a near limit dk. Contrary to popular belief a DWI arrest is far from a trophy arrest.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Long Relief View Post
          Not to mention that it would seem an exigency exsists in order to do the intox since during all the corking around trying to find a judge to bring them they could be sobering up and unless the courthouse is attached to an LEC, there wouldn't be an intox around.

          On a DWI side note, a guy told me a trooper pulled him over and he blew just a hair under .08. I don't know what the stop was for. The guy side the Trooper kept him in the car for another 20 minutes or so and then had him blow again. This time he blew a little less and was let go.

          I guess I consider that move (if it happened that way) dirty pool. I am guessing the Trooper was hoping the guy's BAC was still climbing.
          Originally posted by smw500 View Post
          I disagree. I think the troop was hoping for exactly what happened. That being for your friend to be far enough under the limit to release. I hate when I stop a near limit dk. Contrary to popular belief a DWI arrest is far from a trophy arrest.
          ^this. Most troopers in the metro don't like popping DWIs that are gonna blow under .08 on the DMT test. It's a waste of time and effort since half the time the charges get plead down to careless or outright tossed.
          Contrary to popular belief, and the belief of my command staff, PBT readings are not to be used as a basis for arrest for conventional DWIs (ones that don't involve bus drivers or juveniles, etc). If the Trooper was using the PBT, he was doing it to make sure the guy was on the way down. Go down the road and the driver would be lower and wouldn't get popped by a local.
          Last edited by Reedo; 08-26-2014, 11:18 AM.
          "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
          -John Adams


          Disclaimer: My statements are personal opinions, and in no way reflect those of my agency.

          Comment


          • #6
            I could not find the recording to hear the entire thing.

            That said, court of appeals recently released Schroll v Comm. Of Public Safety. Schroll declined testing...saying he wanted a warrant first. The court basically said if he conditioned his consent on anything that is a refusal. They likened it to a choice of blood/breath/refusal. Those are the only choices available, and "... that by not choosing either test as offered [suspect] clearly chose not to submit to testing"

            While not exactly in line, I think that her request for a judge is clearly a refusal.

            I also think the immediate thing does not mean directly into the courtroom. More along the lines of 36/48 hour rules.
            Last edited by Hiker12; 08-28-2014, 04:42 PM. Reason: typo

            Comment


            • #7
              There is also extensive precedent that causing unreasonable delays in the testing constitutes a refusal by conduct. Demanding a judge before testing would unreasonable delay the test and the collection of evidence. I don't see this going well for that judge candidate- both with the court case and the appointment.
              "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
              -John Adams


              Disclaimer: My statements are personal opinions, and in no way reflect those of my agency.

              Comment


              • #8
                She's a special one...

                Comment

                MR300x250 Tablet

                Collapse

                What's Going On

                Collapse

                There are currently 4879 users online. 282 members and 4597 guests.

                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                Welcome Ad

                Collapse
                Working...
                X