Minnesota

CASES
  • Click here to download all Minnesota cases
  • Bauer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2010)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Police officer had probable cause to believe that driver was driving while impaired outside of the driver's refusal to take field sobriety tests, supporting the revocation of the driver's license pursuant to the implied consent law. The police officer saw the driver run a red light and smelled alcohol on him when he pulled him over. The driver had red, watery eyes and admitted to drinking a couple of alcoholic beverages. Additionally, the driver was belligerent, uncooperative, slurred his speech, and was swaying while on his feet. M.S.A. § 169A.51.
  • Beito v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2010)
    IMPLIED CONSENT A driver's indecision over whether to attempt to contact a lawyer before consenting to a blood or urine test over the course of 45 minutes unreasonably delayed the test and constituted a refusal under Minnesota's implied consent law. The driver was arrested at a hospital while receiving treatment for minor injuries sustained in a one-car, rollover accident. The arresting officer read the driver the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory (ICA). Over the next 45 minutes the officer read the ICA eight more times and allowed the driver access to a phone to call an attorney for approximately 25 minutes. Driver stated he would not provide a blood or urine test until contacting an attorney, despite indicating to the officer that he no longer want to contact an attorney several times. M.S.A. § 171.19.
  • Dotray v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2010)
    IMPLIED CONSENT For purposes of a motorist's challenge to revocation of his license under an implied consent law for refusal of test, a police officer had a legally sufficient basis to execute a traffic stop. The officer testified that he stopped the motorist's vehicle because he saw the vehicle fail to stop at a stop sign. While the motorist cross-examined the officer regarding whether he used speed-detection equipment to confirm that the vehicle failed to stop and implied the officer could not have seen whether the motorist had stopped, the motorist failed to offer any testimony whether he stopped at the stop sign. Additionally, the court found the officer's testimony credible. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10; Minn.Stat. § 169.30(b) (2008).
  • Edstrom v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2011)
    IMPLIED CONSENT District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a new implied consent hearing based on newly discovered evidence. After defendant's implied consent hearing, the state gave defendant a copy of a video recording of the traffic stop captured by the dashboard camera in officer's squad car. The events that the officer described as justifying the traffic stop were not depicted in the video. The district court reasonably found that the period of the officer's challenged observations preceded the recording. Therefore, the video recording did not "conclusively prove" that the traffic stop was unlawful. rule 60 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 839 N.W.2d 536 (2013)
    After driver pleaded guilty to fourth-degree driving while impaired, the Commissioner of Public Safety disqualified him from holding a commercial driver's license. Driver sought judicial review of his commercial license disqualification, alleging that the disqualification was the result of an unlawful traffic stop. The District Court, Meeker County, sustained license disqualification. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] police officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant violated provision of motor vehicle equipment statute so as to support traffic stop, and [2] term "covers," as used within provision of motor vehicle equipment statute prohibiting a person from equipping a motor vehicle with any equipment or material that covers a headlamp, tail lamp, or reflector, or operating a motor vehicle so equipped, includes equipment or material that only partially covers a headlamp, tail lamp, or reflector. Affirmed.
  • Krenz v. Cloverleaf Cold Storage, 2005 WL 2277285 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) *Unpublished
    Employer violated federal transportation-safety laws when its dispatcher told commercial driver to drive a shift without allowing him the ten preceding consecutive hours off duty. Because Employer violated federal transportation-safety laws, the court concludes that commercial driver had good cause per se to quit, that he was not required to report his complaint to his employer and give it yet another opportunity to respond to his complaint, and that he was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
  • Kruckow v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2010)
    The commissioner of public safety was entitled to revoke the driver's license of a driver for driving while impaired. The driver argued that the revocation was improper because the police officer's certification of the test results appeared to have been dated before her urine tests results were known. Even if the officer's certification was defectively completed, other supporting documentation indicated certification was proper. The officer submitted to the commissioner his narrative report, the notice and order of revocation, and the breath test results, which indicated an alcohol concentration of .18, and the officer did not forward the information to the commissioner until after the test results were known and thus the driver was not prejudiced. Minn.Stat. § 169A.52.
  • Lund v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 783 N.W.2d 142 (2010)
    Motorist filed petition for judicial review of decision of the Commissioner of Public Safety revoking his driver's license in implied consent proceeding, based on motorist's arrest for driving while impaired. Prior to hearing on petition, motorist filed discovery motion seeking computer source code for breath-test device. The District Court, Mower County, denied motion and affirmed license revocation. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals, 2009 WL 1587135, reversed and remanded. Subsequently, motorist sought taxation of costs and disbursements against Commissioner. The Court of Appeals allowed taxation of costs and disbursements, and Commissioner appealed. The Supreme Court held that sovereign immunity barred taxation of costs and disbursements against Commissioner. Reversed.
  • Pallas v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 781 N.W.2d 163 (2010)
    Driver sought review of decision of Commissioner of Public Safety, refusing to reinstate his Minnesota driver's license after Illinois permanently revoked his Illinois license. The District Court, Carver County, affirmed. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals held that Commissioner was not authorized to condition reinstatement of driver's Minnesota license upon driver's obtaining a letter clearing the lifetime revocation of his Illinois license. Reversed and remanded.
  • Risk v. Eastside Beverage, 664 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
    IMPLIED CONSENT It is "employment misconduct" under statutory provisions for disqualification of unemployment benefits for an employee, during working hours, to have an alcohol concentration level over the legal limit while driving his employer's vehicle, even if he neither was convicted under any criminal driving while under the influence (DWI) statute nor lost his driver's license under the implied consent statute.
  • Sirovy v. State, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2010)
    State statute providing that commercial drivers with Minnesota licenses will be disqualified from operating commercial motor vehicles when they violate specified federal regulations did not constitute unlawful delegation of state legislative authority to federal government. The Minnesota legislature could adopt extant federal law by reference. Moreover, the federal regulations that were incorporated into the statute had not changed since their incorporation. M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 1; Minnesota Statutes section 171.165, subd. 1.
  • State v. Greenman, 825 N.W.2d 387 (2013)
    Defendant charged with driving while impaired (DWI) in connection with his operation of electric personal assistive mobility device moved to dismiss. The District Court, Hennepin County, granted motion, and state appealed. The Court of Appeals, Chutich, J., held that two-wheeled, self-balancing, battery-powered device designed for use in places inaccessible to cars or bicycles, including interiors of buildings, did not constitute "motor vehicle" for purposes of DWI statute. Affirmed.
  • State v. Loeffel, 749 N.W.2d 115 (2008)
    Defendant entered a guilty plea, in the District Court, Nicollet County, to second-degree gross misdemeanor driving while impaired (DWI). Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that a prior civil driver's license revocation obtained under Wisconsin law, under which law a person suspected of driving under the influence is not entitled to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing, may be used in Minnesota as a qualified impaired driving incident, for purposes of statutorily enhancing a criminal driving while impaired charge to second-degree gross misdemeanor DWI. Affirmed.
  • State v. Patterson, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2013)
    Appellant challenges his two convictions of driving while impaired (DWI), arguing that his license was not previously revoked under the enhancement statute, that the jury was instructed incorrectly, that he was barred from presenting a relevant case, and that the district court erred in correcting the sentencing order. Because the enhancement statute recognizes revocation of reciprocal driving privileges as a prior revocation, and because the district court did not err in its jury instructions, ruling on the relevance of caselaw, or in correcting a clerical error, we affirm.
  • State v. Smith, Not Reported in N.W.2d (2014)
    On appeal from his conviction of driving while intoxicated (DWI), appellant argues that (1) the district court erred when it concluded that the stop of appellant's vehicle was supported by an honest suspicion of criminal activity that was both reasonable and articulable and (2) appellant's consent to an alcohol-concentration test was coerced. Affirmed.
  • State v. Sterling, 782 N.W.2d 579 (2010)
    Following denial of his motion to suppress evidence and subsequent waiver of his right to a jury trial, defendant was convicted by the District Court, Watonwan County, on stipulated facts of two counts of fourth-degree driving while impaired (DWI). Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] deputy could require motorist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol concentration test once deputy determined that breath testing machine malfunctioned, and [2] results of urine test were admissible despite later printout from breath testing machine. Affirmed.
  • Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety, --- N.W.2d ---- (2014)
    IMPLIED CONSENT The commissioner of public safety revoked motorist's driver's license after she was arrested for driving while impaired (DWI) and refused to submit to chemical testing. Following motorist's appeal, the District Court, Hennepin County, sustained the revocation. Motorist again appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: [1] sufficient evidence supported trial court's finding that motorist refused to submit to chemical testing; [2] unconstitutional-conditions doctrine did not apply to motorist's Fourth Amendment challenge to the implied-consent statute; [3] and even if the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine did apply, the implied-consent statute was not unconstitutional under the doctrine. Affirmed.
STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions