The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Jante v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided November 16, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you will lose if your attorney does not raise the correct issue.
In Jante, a Douglas County Sheriff's deputy was on routine patrol when he saw a pickup truck stopped in a turn lane with its emergency lights on. The deputy stopped and approached the vehicle on the passenger side. Petitioner was standing outside of the vehicle next to the front passenger door. The door was open. At the Petitioner's feet were empty beer bottles and the truck’s ignition keys.
Seated in the backseat of the vehicle was a passenger. Both the Petitioner and the backseat passenger claimed the other person was driving. The Petitioner was arrested for DWI and his license was revoked.
The Petitioner filed a challenge to the license revocation challenging, "whether there was probable cause that the Petitioner was in physical control of the vehicle". The Petitioner testified he was not the driver. The passenger also testified that she had lied to the police (because she was already on probation) and was in-fact the driver of the vehicle.
In addition, other witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf that they saw the Petitioner leave in his truck with the alleged passenger driving his vehicle.
The district court sustained the revocation finding that the police had probable cause to believe the Petitioner was driving or in physical control of the motor vehicle. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, confining its analysis to whether there was "probable cause" to believe the Petitioner drove or was in physical control of the motor vehicle.
There are a number of cases [Eg. Liona v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 389 N.W.2d 210 (MN.App. 1986); Winder v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 392 N.W.2d 21 (MN.App. 1986); Rademacher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, _ N.W.2d _ (MN App. 2007, Unpublished)] which hold that when the Petitioner alleges (in his revocation petition )that he or she was not, in fact, the driver or operator or in physical control of the motor vehicle, the Commissioner then has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Petitioner was, in fact, the driver.
In the present case, it appears the Petitioner only alleged the police did not have "probable cause" to believe he was in physical control, which is a much easier standard for the Commissioner to meet.
Moral Of The Story: If you have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, hire an experienced lawyer who will not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment