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DWI Case Of The Week is Martini v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided December 2, 2019 Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that that not every misstatement by the police constitutes a due process violation.  

Mr. Martini was a resident of Oregon when he was stopped by a state trooper in Stearns County, Minnesota.  He was subsequently arrested for DWI and after testing over the legal limit, the trooper issued Mr. Martini a "Notice and Order of Revocation".  The Notice stated his privilege to drive in Minnesota would be revoked in seven days. The trooper, however, mistakenly informed the Defendant that the revocation was immediate.

Martini petitioned for judicial review, asking the district court to rescind the revocation. He argued that his due-process rights were violated because Trooper Carlson had incorrectly told him that his license revocation was effective immediately rather than after seven days and that he suffered prejudice because of the error. The district court sustained the revocation and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating:

"We emphasize that the practical effective date of the revocation of Martini’s driving privileges was not immediate but rather seven days after the trooper issued the written notice, as the written notice provided. The district court found that Martini’s practical revocation did not commence until that date. Martini does not contest the finding. And as his counsel implicitly acknowledged at oral argument, the Minnesota revocation also had no immediate effect in Oregon. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 809.400(2) (2017) (“The department may suspend or revoke the driving privileges of any resident of this state upon receiving notice from another state . . . that the person’s driving privileges in that jurisdiction have been suspended or revoked.”). The trooper’s incorrect oral statement about the revocation’s practical onset therefore had no effect on Martini’s actual driving privileges anywhere."

"Even if we were to recognize, as Martini urges, that prejudicial reliance on an officer’s misstatement could constitute a due-process violation outside the McDonnell setting, Martini has not established that his reliance was reasonable. Martini’s theory would require us to accept that an officer’s oral misstatement of the revocation’s practical onset constitutes a due-process violation even when the officer simultaneously provides the driver clear, accurate, written notice. Martini offers no caselaw or logical explanation supporting the theory, and we do not assume any exists. Aware of the irreconcilable inconsistency between the oral statement and the written statement about the revocation’s practical onset, Martini was on notice that one of the statements was certainly wrong. He could have resolved the discrepancy by referring to the relevant statutes and rule."

Moral Of The Story: Don't take legal advice from a cop.

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