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are now being used to enhance the pending DWI prosecution, the revocations violate his due process rights and should be rescinded.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.