Minnesota DWI Defense + Implied Consent / Plate Impoundment Hearing Package

MINNESOTA DWI DEFENSE AND ADMINISTRATIVE / IMPLIED-CONSENT HEARING PACKAGE

PART 1 — CASE SUMMARY AND DEADLINE WORKSHEET

Critical Minnesota-Specific Deadlines

• 60 days from receipt of Notice & Order of Revocation to file petition for judicial review (Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 2; § 171.177, subd. 10). Filed in district court of county where offense occurred.
• 30 days from notice of plate impoundment to challenge under § 169A.60, subd. 10.
• Administrative review by Commissioner may be requested at any time but does not stay revocation (§ 169A.52, subd. 1; § 171.177, subd. 8).

PART 2 — MINNESOTA DWI DEGREE / PENALTY TABLE

Refusal is itself a crime (Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2) but, per Birchfield and State v. Trahan, only refusal of a breath test (or fluid test pursuant to warrant) may be criminalized.

PART 3 — PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (IMPLIED CONSENT)

STATE OF MINNESOTA, DISTRICT COURT — [____________] COUNTY — [_____] JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Court File No.: [_________________]

PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LICENSE REVOCATION

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.53 (breath test) or § 171.177 (blood / urine test pursuant to search warrant), Petitioner respectfully petitions this Court for rescission of the revocation of driving privileges and states:

1. Petitioner is [____] years of age and a resident of [____________] County, Minnesota.
2. Petitioner holds Minnesota driver license number [_________________].
3. On [__/__/____], Petitioner was arrested for DWI in [____________] County.
4. The Commissioner of Public Safety served Notice & Order of Revocation on [__/__/____].
5. This petition is filed within 60 days of service.

Issues for Review (check all applicable)

• ☐ Whether the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Petitioner was DWI (§ 169A.51, subd. 1).
• ☐ Whether Petitioner was lawfully placed under arrest (§ 169A.51, subd. 1(b)(1)).
• ☐ Whether Petitioner was properly read the Breath Test Advisory (§ 169A.51, subd. 2) or properly advised that refusal of fluid test is a crime (§ 171.177, subd. 1).
• ☐ Whether Petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel before testing (Friedman v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991)).
• ☐ Whether the test was administered in compliance with established procedures.
• ☐ For fluid test cases: whether a peace officer applied for a search warrant under §§ 626.04–626.18, whether a neutral magistrate found probable cause, and whether the warrant and process were valid (§ 171.177, subd. 12(b)(4)–(6)).
• ☐ Affirmative defense: prescription-drug use per § 153.11 / § 152.12 (Schedule I/II controlled substances).
• ☐ Whether the alleged refusal was a refusal in law and fact.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this Court rescind the revocation and order such other relief as is just.

Dated: [__/__/____]
[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK — name, MN attorney reg. #, address, phone]

PART 4 — REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY COMMISSIONER

TO: Driver and Vehicle Services Division, MN Department of Public Safety, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 1 (or § 171.177, subd. 8), the undersigned respectfully requests administrative review of the Order of Revocation issued on [__/__/____].

Petitioner acknowledges that administrative review does not stay the revocation and is in addition to, not in lieu of, judicial review.

Signed: [_________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 5 — CHALLENGE TO ADMINISTRATIVE PLATE IMPOUNDMENT (§ 169A.60)

TO: Commissioner of Public Safety / District Court, [____________] County

Issues / Grounds (§ 169A.60, subd. 10)

1. ☐ The vehicle was used in violation of the impaired-driving law (deny).
2. ☐ The driver's conduct does not give rise to plate impoundment under § 169A.60, subd. 1.
3. ☐ A registered owner who was not the driver did not know, and had no reason to know, the driver would operate the vehicle while impaired, in violation of license restrictions, or after revocation.
4. ☐ Failure to provide notice as required.

Request: rescind plate impoundment and order return of plates.

PART 6 — DISCOVERY DEMAND (MINN. R. CRIM. P. 9)

Pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01 and Brady v. Maryland, Defendant demands disclosure of:

1. ☐ All police reports, supplemental reports, CAD logs, and dispatch records.
2. ☐ Squad-camera, body-worn camera, booking-room, and DataMaster room video.
3. ☐ DataMaster DMT-G source code documentation, certification records, calibration logs (180 days), diagnostic checks, and operator credentials.
4. ☐ Search warrant application, affidavit, return, and inventory for any blood or urine draw.
5. ☐ BCA (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) chain-of-custody, lab notes, GC-MS chromatograms, and analyst CVs.
6. ☐ Implied Consent / Breath Test Advisory form (signed) and Notice & Order of Revocation.
7. ☐ Roadside SFST and PBT records (PBT result is inadmissible at trial but discoverable).
8. ☐ Officer's DRE (Drug Recognition Evaluator) notes, rolling logs, and certification.
9. ☐ Brady/Giglio material on each State witness.
10. ☐ All exculpatory evidence.

Dated: [__/__/____]
[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK]

PART 7 — MOTION TO SUPPRESS

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant moves the Court to suppress all evidence stemming from the unlawful stop, arrest, and testing, on the following grounds:

I. Fourth Amendment — Stop and Detention

1. The officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to seize Defendant (State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 2000)).
2. The expanded scope of the stop exceeded the constitutional basis of the seizure (State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011); Rodriguez v. United States).

II. Probable Cause for Arrest

3. SFSTs were administered in non-compliance with NHTSA protocols and on improper surface; PBT was unreliable.

III. Implied Consent and Testing

4. The Breath Test Advisory was misleading or coercive.
5. Defendant was denied a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel (Friedman v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety).
6. For blood/urine: warrantless draw violates the Fourth Amendment (Missouri v. McNeely; Birchfield; Mitchell v. Wisconsin); warrant was not supported by probable cause, was overbroad, or executed improperly.
7. DataMaster DMT-G result is unreliable due to instrument malfunction, simulator solution failure, mouth-alcohol, RFI, or operator error.

IV. Statements

8. Statements obtained without Miranda warnings during custodial interrogation must be suppressed (State v. Champion, 533 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1995)).

Dated: [__/__/____]
[ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK]

PART 8 — LIMITED LICENSE / IGNITION INTERLOCK PETITION

A. Limited License (§ 169A.55)

B. Ignition Interlock Program (§ 171.306)

The applicant agrees to abide by all IID program rules including monthly downloads, 30-day service intervals, and prohibition against tampering (§ 171.306, subd. 6).

Signed: [_________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 9 — PLEA-DEAL WORKSHEET

Client review/signature: [_________________________________] Date: [__/__/____]

PART 10 — IMPLIED CONSENT SUMMARY (MINNESOTA)

PART 11 — SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Minn. Stat. ch. 169A — Driving While Impaired.
• Minn. Stat. § 171.177 — Revocation following blood/urine test pursuant to search warrant.
• Minn. Stat. § 171.306 — Ignition Interlock Device Program.
• MN Department of Public Safety — Driver and Vehicle Services, Request for Administrative Review form.
• MN State Patrol DWI Reference Guide (DWI EZ Guide).
• Friedman v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991).
• State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015); Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438 (2016).
• State v. Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016) (criminalization of blood-test refusal unconstitutional without warrant).
• Minn. R. Crim. P. 9 — Discovery.

End of Minnesota DWI Defense + Implied Consent / Plate Impoundment Hearing Package.