Minnesota DWI Lawyer F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Schwartz, (Decided April 13, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published) which stands for the proposition that a criminal charge of operating a motor vehicle with “any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II” in the operator’s body, does not require proof that the operator knew or had reason to know that the controlled substance was in his body. The Court is careful to point out, however, that the ruling does not cover a situation where the driver was the victim of a "spiked drink" or is making the claim the substance was involuntarily ingested.

In Schwartz, the Bloomington police responded to a call concerning an unresponsive male in a car.  The responding officers observed that the person, later identified as appellant, had difficulty balancing and standing. He smelled of alcohol. After failing a series of field sobriety tests, appellant admitted to having consumed alcohol. Officers arrested him. A search of appellant’s person incident to arrest revealed a glass pipe in appellant’s pocket. 

Mr. Schwartz submitted to a preliminary breath test, which showed a 0.04 alcohol concentration. Suspecting that appellant was under the influence of a substance other than alcohol, officers obtained a search warrant authorizing seizure of a sample of appellant’s blood. Testing of appellant’s blood later revealed the presence of 0.03 mg/L of amphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance.

The state charged appellant with operating a motor vehicle with any amount of a schedule I or II controlled substance in his body  in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7). The state also charged appellant with two additional counts of driving while impaired, two counts of possessing drug paraphernalia, and one count of possessing an open bottle of beverage alcohol. As part of a plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to gross-misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle with any amount of a schedule I or II controlled substance in his body.

Mr. Schwartz subsequently appealed, challenging the validity of his guilty plea, alleging the plea was invalid because he did not admit in his plea testimony that he knew or had reason to know that his body contained a controlled substance listed in schedule I or II at the time he operated the motor vehicle.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the Appellant's claim, noting:  

"...if a guilty plea is not “accurate, voluntary, and intelligent,” it is invalid. Kaiser v. State, 641 N.W.2d 900, 903 (Minn. 2002). An invalid guilty plea may be withdrawn. State v. The is, 742 N.W.2d 643, 646 (Minn. 2007). A guilty plea is not accurate if the defendant does not admit to facts showing that his conduct meets all of the elements of the charge to which he is pleading guilty. State v. Iverson, 664 N.W.2d 346, 349-50 (Minn. 2005)."

"Under Minnesota law, it is a crime for a “person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle . . . when ... the person’s body contains any amount” of a schedule I or II controlled substance or its metabolite. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7). The charge requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the person drove, operated or was in physical control of a motor vehicle; and (2) at the time the person drove, operated, or was in physical control of the motor vehicle, the person’s body contained any amount of a schedule I or II drug or its metabolite."

"At his plea hearing and in his plea petition, appellant admitted that he had been in control of a motor vehicle, that officers found a glass pipe in his pocket, and that appellant’s blood seized by police after his arrest tested positive for amphetamine....Nevertheless, appellant contends that his guilty plea in invalid because, he argues, we should interpret the statute to require proof that the operator knew or had reason to know that a prohibited substance was in his body. Appellant’s guilty plea included no acknowledgement that he knew or had reason to know that his body contained amphetamine."

"This court has held that impaired driving is a general-intent crime, the requisite mental state being “only a general intent to do the act.” State v. Anderson, 468 N.W.2d 345, 346 (Minn. App. 1991). Although section 169A.20, subdivision 1(7), is silent concerning any mens rea element, the legislature provided an affirmative defense to drivers such as appellant in specific cases:

'If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it is an affirmative defense to a violation of section 169A.20 subdivision 1, clause (7) (presence of Schedule I or II controlled substance), that the defendant used the controlled substance according to the terms of a prescription issued for the defendant in accordance with sections 152.11 and 152.12. Minn. Stat. § 169A.46, subd. 2 (2016)'. An affirmative defense relieves the defendant of

criminal liability even though the elements of the crime are admitted or proved."

"The legislature having provided for an affirmative defense concerning schedule I or II controlled substances in limited circumstances demonstrates to our satisfaction that the absence of any specified mens rea element in section 169A.20, subdivision 1(7), concerning controlled substances was not an inadvertent omission."

***

"Section 169A.20, subdivision 1(7), is similar to the per se rule against driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5) (2016). Appellant cites no authority for the notion that the 0.08-or-more prohibition requires the state to prove that the driver in such a case must have been subjectively aware of his own alcohol concentration in order to be guilty of the crime. That would be absurd."

"Because Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7), provides for criminal liability without proof of knowledge or intent, because the statute is a public-welfare offense, and because the legislature specifically provided for a limited affirmative defense for drivers with schedule I or II controlled substances in the driver’s body, we decline to read into the statute an element not included by the legislature in the definition of the crime. The state is not required to prove that the motor-vehicle operator knew or had reason to know that a controlled substance was in his body to prove a charge under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7). Although appellant did not acknowledge in his plea testimony that he knew or had reason to know of the amphetamine in his body, that does not render his guilty plea invalid."

Moral Of The Story:  Don't plead guilty if you did not know.

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.