Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided May 9, 2016, Published, Minnesota Court of Appeals) which stands for the proposition that even if you are certifiably insane, you still must file a challenge to the license revocation within 30 days of the revocation.

In Johnson, the Defendant was arrested for DWI in 2006 and for a second DWI offense in 2008.  He received a notice of license revocation in each case but he never filed a license revocation challenge to either offense.  

While these DWI charges were pending, the Defendant was found mentally incompetent to stand trial for either offense.  As a result, both of the charges were subsequently dismissed.

On December 12, 2012 the Defendant was arrested for felony DWI and the state used the license revocations from the 2006 and 2008 arrests to enhance the 2012 arrest to a felony.  In April 2015, the Defendant filed an Implied Consent Challenge to the two prior license revocations but the district court dismissed the challenges as untimely.

On appeal, the Defendant asserted that because he was found incompetent to face criminal charges stemming from his 2006 and 2008 DWI arrests, he was also mentally incompetent to request judicial review of the corresponding license-revocation proceedings.  He, therefore, claims that because the revocations are now being used to enhance the pending DWI prosecution, the revocations violate his due process rights and should be rescinded.

In rejecting the Defendant's challenge, the Minnesota Court of Appeals notes:

"Appellant appears to suggest that because of his mental incompetence at the times he received notice of the revocations, he was not given adequate notice to seek judicial review. Therefore, he argues, enforcing the 30-day jurisdictional bar would violate his due-process rights. Notice is adequate in an implied-consent proceeding where the state provides "[n]otice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." McShane, 311 N.W.2d at 482-83 (quotation omitted). "Actual receipt of the notice is not required to meet the due process requirement." State v. Green, 351 N.W.2d 42, 44 (Minn. App. 1984). Courts have found notice to be adequate even where the petitioner did not receive actual notice or claimed not to understand the notice. Id.; Johnson v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 394 N.W.2d 867, 868-69 (Minn. App. 1986). So long as notice of the opportunity to seek judicial review of a revocation is "reasonably calculated" to reach the driver, it may satisfy due process even if it never, in fact, reaches that driver."

"Because the notice to appellant was sufficient to satisfy due process and appellant did not exercise his right to request judicial review within the 30-day period, the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the petition. If the result now seems harsh, it is a criticism that may be levelled against many statutes of limitation. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy D.W.I, laws, including the implied consent statute, are liberally construed in the public's favor and are strictly applied."

Moral Of The Story:  You would have to be crazy not to  file a timely challenge your license revocation. Because even if you are, that is no excuse!

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

 

Minneapolis DWI Attorney Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Salisbury v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided November 30, 2015, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that no matter how many times you file a petition challenging the license revocation, the initial petition must still be filed within 30 days of the revocation notice.

In Salisbury, the Appellant was arrested for DWI on November 4, 2012 and received a notice and order of revocation at that time, informing her that her license would be revoked for one year starting on November 11, 2012.  

Ms. Salisbury then retained counsel, who did not file a petition for judicial review of the license revocation until December 7, 2012.  The Appellant's attorney also requested that a temporary stay of the license revocation be granted and on January 28, 2013 (pursuant to the Ramsey County policy), the district court granted the stay pending the resolution of the criminal case.

On October 1, 2013, the criminal case was resolved and an implied-consent hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2014.  On July 10, 2014 the Commissioner of Public Safety flied a motion to dismiss Salisbury's petition for judicial review on the ground that the district court had no jurisdiction to consider the petition due to the fact that it had not been filed within 30 days of the notice and order of revocation. On August 5, 2014, the district court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss and Ms. Salisbury did not appeal the court's order.

On August 8, 2014 the Department of Public Safety mailed to the Appellant another notice and order of revocation informing her that her license would be revoked based upon the November 4, 2012 incident. This notice indicated that the revocation would be effective on August 14, 2014 and that Salisbury had the right to petition for judicial review in accordance with the statutory requirements for such a petition.  Salisbury then filed a second petition for judicial review on August 19, 2014.

The Commissioner of Public Safety moved to dismiss the second petition for judicial review on the grounds that it was untimely and the district court agreed. 

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals noted that: "One has a statutory right to judicial review of an order revoking her driver's license if she files a petition with the district court "[w]ithin 30 days following receipt of a notice and order of revocation." See Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 2(a) (2012). "A failure to file a petition for judicial review within the 30-day statutory period deprives the district court of jurisdiction to hear the petition." Thole v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 831 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Minn. App. 2013), review denied (Minn. July 16, 2013)."

Salisbury concedes she did not file a petition for judicial review within 30 days and that the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider her December 7, 2012 petition.  But she claims on appeal that her receipt of the August 8, 2014 notice and order of revocation triggered a new 30-day period during which the court acquired jurisdiction to consider Salisbury's August 19th petition for review.

In rejecting Salisbury's contention the Minnesota Court of Appeals held:
"But DPS had no ability to confer jurisdiction upon the district court by stating or suggesting to Salisbury that she had a right to judicial review. See Davidner, 304 Minn, at 493, 232 N.W.2d at 7. Although we question DPS's inclusion of potentially misleading language in its August 8 notice and order, we reject Salisbury's argument that the second notice conferred jurisdiction upon the court to review her initial license revocation."

"We conclude that the district court was deprived of jurisdiction to resolve Salisbury's challenge to the factual and legal bases of the original revocation as soon as Salisbury failed to assert that challenge within 30 days of her receipt of the November 4, 2012 notice and order of revocation. The August 2014 reinstatement of the revocation did nothing to change that. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider Salisbury's August 19, 2014 petition for judicial review."

MORAL OF THE STORY: He who hesitates is lost!

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