UPDATE – April 2018
What is the Status of errors on the Minnesota’s Implied Consent Advisory?
Several months ago, Mr. Tschida discovered that Minnesota’s Implied Consent Advisory contained a subtle, but significant, inaccurate statement of law. Months later, in April 2018, the State of Minnesota acknowledged this error. Defense attorneys across the State are now raising this very due process issue with regard to the inaccurate and misleading Advisory. In doing some further digging, Mr. Tschida recognized that Minnesota’s Implied Consent Advisory contains other irregularities that are found in no other state. These issues are hugely significant because a due process concern based on a misleading advisory does not require any kind of prejudice or that it “changed” the testing decision made by the driver. In cases where this is argued successfully, the test (or refusal) would be suppressed and/or charges and license revocations overturned.
What is the Status of DWI Search Warrants?
Blood & Urine Test Refusal Unconstitutional in Minnesota!
State v. Trahan (the State’s act of criminalizing a driver’s refusal to consent to blood alcohol testing violates due process). This case has huge implications for the validity of many DUI prosecutions in the State of Minnesota. The issue will have an impact on ALL cases (refusal or test failure) involving blood or urine. As a result, please consult your attorney immediately to determine the applicability of this new precedent to your specific Minnesota DWI case. There are strict deadlines that your attorney will need to meet for both criminal and Implied Consent cases.
612 . 710 . 6863