The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Willis v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided November 19, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if the police read a misleading advisory to a person under arrest for DWI, the arrestee must testify he or she relied on the misleading advisory in order to establish a due process violation.
These cases keep coming up over and over in the Court of Appeals and the reason is this: It used to be, under Olinger v. Commissioner of Public Safety, that all the defense had to show was that the advisory was misleading in order to establish a due process violation. It did not matter if the defendant testified or not. And it did not matter if the defendant submitted to testing or not. But all that has changed under the recent Minnesota Supreme Court cases of Morehouse and Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety.
In Morehouse and Johnson, the Supreme Court held that in order to establish a due process violation, the Defendant must establish three things:
(1) That the person whose license was revoked submitted to a breath, blood or urine test;
(2) The person prejudicially relied on the implied consent advisory in deciding to undergo testing; and
(3) The implied consent advisory did not accurately inform the person of the legal consequences of refusing to submit to testing.
Since everyone was relying on Olinger, no attorney was having their Minnesota DWI client testify that they relied upon what they were told when the police read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory. And so now, all those Olinger-type cases are getting reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. AARRGH!!
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
These cases keep coming up over and over in the Court of Appeals and the reason is this: It used to be, under Olinger v. Commissioner of Public Safety, that all the defense had to show was that the advisory was misleading in order to establish a due process violation. It did not matter if the defendant testified or not. And it did not matter if the defendant submitted to testing or not. But all that has changed under the recent Minnesota Supreme Court cases of Morehouse and Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety.
In Morehouse and Johnson, the Supreme Court held that in order to establish a due process violation, the Defendant must establish three things:
(1) That the person whose license was revoked submitted to a breath, blood or urine test;
(2) The person prejudicially relied on the implied consent advisory in deciding to undergo testing; and
(3) The implied consent advisory did not accurately inform the person of the legal consequences of refusing to submit to testing.
Since everyone was relying on Olinger, no attorney was having their Minnesota DWI client testify that they relied upon what they were told when the police read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory. And so now, all those Olinger-type cases are getting reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. AARRGH!!
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment