The Professionalism and Attention to My Case Exceeded My Expectations in Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys
Embedded Files
Ambrose Law Firm, DWI & Criminal Lawyers
120 South Sixth St #2050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 547-3199
What is the Difference Between an Administrative Review and Judicial Review? MN DWI Laws
Upon being arrested for a DWI in Minnesota, you will receive a notice and order of revocation for your driving privileges, if you took a breath test that resulted in an alcohol concentration of .08 or more or if you refused to take a test. If you took a blood or urine test, then your notice and order of revocation will likely arrive in the mail after the lab results return, if they show an alcohol concentration of .08 or more or the existence of a controlled substance schedule I or II. On the notice and order of revocation it states near the bottom that you can either request an administrative review or petition for judicial review. What’s the difference?
Administrative Review
Administrative reviews are simply that. You are only getting a review of administrative technical errors in the revocation. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) form can be found here. If DPS calculated your revocation period length incorrectly, an administrative review makes sense. After all, it was an administrative error. The form lists many legal issues that a driver can challenge through an administrative review, but you are not getting a district court judge to review the case through an administrative review. You are getting an official from DPS to review your case. You are also do not have the opportunity to cross examine the officers involved in your case. Therefore, it is often not a very fruitful endeavor when challenging a driver’s license revocation from a DWI case. Administrative reviews can be useful for challenging plate impoundment orders when someone else was driving your vehicle and challenging ignition interlock violations, however.
Judicial Review
Judicial reviews, a.k.a. implied consent petitions, bring you into district court to challenge legal issues in your case to try and get the license revocation removed from your record. You get a hearing in front of the judge in the county where your case originated. The police officers involved in your case must appear to testify at the hearing. These officers include the one that came into initial contact with you, such as the one who made the traffic stop. The officer who conducted field sobriety tests, placed you under arrest, read you the breath test advisory or obtained a search warrant for a blood or urine sample, and the officer who conducted the breath test. In some cases, it may be just one officer who did all those things in your case. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office represents DPS (Commissioner of Public Safety) in these hearings and will fight to have the license revocation remain on your driving record. Your defense attorney will have the opportunity to cross examine the officers involved in your cases, call witnesses on your behalf, and submit evidence at the hearing. Your DWI lawyer will also be able to make arguments for your case at the conclusion of the hearing either orally on the record or through written memoranda. Once the case is submitted to judge, the judge will either issue a ruling at the hearing or a written ruling later on the merits of the case.
Should a Defendant Testify at Trial?
Should a defendant testify at trial? This is one of the biggest strategic decisions for defense lawyers and their clients to make during a criminal jury trial. Regardless of what the criminal defense lawyer advises their client to do, the defendant holds the absolute power to make the final decision about whether they want to testify at trial. Even so, clients often listen to their attorney’s advice about this monumental decision before deciding what they will do.
Why the Defendant May Not Testify?
Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment protects against forcing a defendant to testify at trial. It declares no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The judge will give an instruction to the jury that the defendant is not forced to testify. The judge will also instruct the jury that if the defendant chooses not to testify, then it shall not use that decision against the defendant. Defense attorneys can talk about the presumption of innocence and the Fifth Amendment’s right to remain silent throughout the trial, such as in voir dire (jury selection), opening statements, and closing arguments. If the prosecution does not meet its burden and prove its case, then there is often no need for the defendant to testify.
Did the defendant already give a statement prior to trial? Did that statement get entered into evidence during the prosecution’s case-in-chief? If the jury already watched the defendant give a statement in a video recording, then there may not be any need for the defendant to give another statement by testifying at trial, especially if you are satisfied with the original statement.
In the same vein, the defendant’s testimony may not add anything substantially to the case. All the testimony you desire, all the facts you were looking to have come out, may have already been put into evidence at the trial. At that point, there may just not simply be a need for the defendant to testify.
There are many other considerations why a defendant may not testify at trial, but a very simple one could be that the defendant simply does not want to. As it is their choice on whether or not to testify, they may be against it. A defense attorney who strongly advises their client to testify, may ultimately listen to their lawyer and decide to testify. But if the client still does not want to testify, then you must abide by their wishes.
Why Should the Defendant Testify?
Despite the judge’s jury instructions stating that a defendant does not have to testify at trial, the jury often wonders throughout the trial about whether the defendant will testify. It is no secret that some jurors will take it as evidence of guilt, if the defendant does not testify at trial. They think: why don’t they just get up there and say they did not do it? Because of those strong feelings by jurors, defense attorneys may feel compelled to have their clients testify. Defendants may even feel compelled to testify.
Another reason in favor of the defendant testifying is that there may be no other means to explain what happened. Sometimes, there is no video evidence of an incident. Sometimes, there are no witnesses besides an alleged victim and the defendant. In those instances, there would be no other person to get the facts out for the defense, but the defendant.
Similarly to the decision not to testify, the defendant may adamantly demand that they testify at their trial. In that instance, you must similarly abide by your client’s wishes. It is important to discuss with them that they will be placed under oath and be subjected to cross examination by the prosecution.
The choice of whether a defendant should testify at trial is sometimes excruciating to make. It can make or break a case. Some think that the trial is over once the jury is selected, because jurors have preconceived notions before they even hear any testimony. But, defendant’s testifying at their own trial is a seminal moment. It can provide great theater. And, jurors will be tuning in to the defendant’s testimony as much as any other witness in the trial. Therefore, you can certainly win or lose your case based on the defendant’s testimony. This is why it is such a debated question about whether the defendant should do so. You often evaluate whether you made the correct choice after the jury renders its verdict. Right or wrong, it is easy to think about this important decision after the fact.
Marijuana DWI Conviction Requires Actually Being Under the Influence of Marijuana
You can get a Marijuana DWI in Minnesota. But, under Minnesota law, you must actually be under the influence of marijuana. Mere presence of marijuana in your system is not enough. Recently, the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed this topic in State v. Berger.
In Berger’s case, an officer stopped his car after it was leaving a closed park in the early morning hours. Not for swerving or any impaired driving conduct. The cop noticed Berger had bloodshot eyes and faintly smelled of alcohol and marijuana. The officer had Berger take a preliminary breath test (PBT) for evidence of alcohol consumption, which registered 0.00. The officer let Berger drive away but ended up arresting his passenger for a separate probation violation matter.
Berger then drove to the jail to pick up his passenger. The same officer from before noticed Berger at the jail and saw that his skin was flushed, and his eyes were dilated. Suspecting drug use, the officer had Berger perform field sobriety tests tailored towards possible drug DWIs. After concluding he failed the tests, the officer obtained a blood sample from Berger. The results of that test later indicated the presence of THC.
Berger was then charged with Fourth Degree DWI – Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance. After a stipulated-facts trial, Berger was found guilty and appealed, in part, the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him. The main issue was whether Berger was under the influence of marijuana while driving his car. Remember, the officer did not originally stop Berger’s vehicle leaving the closed park for any impaired driving conduct. All the officer had to go on was some indicia of impairment based on his limited field sobriety testing at the jail and the mere presence of THC in Berger’s blood sample.
Unlike alcohol, there is no legal limit for the amount of marijuana (THC) in someone’s blood. But, someone can be convicted of DWI being under the influence of alcohol regardless of their actual alcohol content. These cases mainly include impaired driving conduct, such as accidents, or erratic or aggressive driving like in Teske and Richardson.
In contrast, when prosecutors rely on impairment factors observed after any driving conduct solely for under the influence charges, then it becomes more difficult for them to secure a conviction. In Elmourabit, the driver was stopped for speeding, which is not indicia of impairment. The officers noted the driver had bloodshot and watery eyes and was difficult to understand. But, the court was not swayed that it was sufficient evidence for being under the influence.
Similarly here, the court of appeals reasoned that there was not any evidence Berger was driving erratically or violated any traffic laws. The indicia of any impairment occurred after the driving had stopped. And, in this case even after Berger’s initial release from the scene. The court of appeals also noted in significant fashion that “we are mindful to avoid placing ‘too much significance’ on field sobriety tests” because it did not believe there was evidence that it also influenced his driving conduct. Therefore, the court of appeals reversed Berger’s conviction.
How Your Jail Release in Minnesota Helps and Impacts Your Case
After more than fifty years, it appears that public support for America’s war on drugs is faltering. A growing number of Wright County jurors see illicit drugs as a health and safety issue, as opposed to a criminal law issue. So, outcomes for Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys in these cases are changing, particularly in simple possession matters.
Court and Government Response to Drug Crimes in the U.S.
Nevertheless, prosecutors are still very aggressive in this area, especially regarding possession cases. In the 1980s, when the War on Drugs was just heating up, drug arrests were evenly split between possession and distribution matters. Today, simple possession cases make up over 80 percent of all drug arrests.
Apropos of nothing, the law enforcement climate changed in the early 80s mostly because of Len Bias’ death. According to many, this basketball phenom was as good as Michael Jordan, or maybe better. If you see this kid’s highlight reel, it’s hard to disagree with either assertion. A few hours after the Boston Celtics chose Bias in the first round, he did a line of cocaine at a party, laid down, and died.
In response, Congress passed a number of laws which, in retrospect, were overly strict. These laws included the controversial mandatory minimum sentencing requirement. A trace amount of cocaine meant a long prison sentence, regardless of the facts. Several decades later, President Barack Obama issued over 1,700 pardons, most of them for harsh drug crime sentences from the late 20th century.
The aforementioned environmental changes (public health v. public safety) give Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys an even better opportunity to successfully resolve drug possession cases in Wright County. While every matter is different, most follow the same general outline.
Get Out of Jail (Almost) Free in Minneapolis, MN
A new day is also dawning in terms of jail release, which is always the first priority in a criminal case. The changed political and social climate is a good sign, but pretrial detention creates multiple serious problems for Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys and their clients.
Economic Impact of Drug Charges in Minneapolis, MN
Even a few days behind bars could have an unbelievable economic impact on a Minnesota family. Most people lose their jobs and/or businesses in these situations. Without any way to provide for their families, these individuals often become increasingly desperate.
The strain on emotional relationships could be even worse than the strain on professional relationships.
Emotion Impact of Drug Charges in Minneapolis, MN
Furthermore, incarceration can cause brain injury, which is colloquially known as the “jailhouse blues.” Incarceration triggers the fight-or-flight instinct. People who are behind bars have neither option. So, their stress hormone levels go through the roof. Continued exposure to such hormones alters brain chemistry. Many people know someone who was not the same person when s/he got out of jail as s/he was before. That’s because, from a brain biology standpoint, the person is different.
Perhaps most importantly, many jurors assume if the defendant is in jail, the defendant must have done something wrong. At that point, the drug possession case becomes a criminal law violation which merits punishment, as far as the jury is concerned. In other words, especially in these cases, pretrial detention transforms the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt.
Release on Your Own Recognizance in Minneapolis, MN
OR (Own Recognizance) release is often an option in nonviolent cases, such as drug possession. Essentially, the defendant promises to appear at trial, and the sheriff releases the defendant. This form of pretrial release has gained significant traction in recent years, as critics have harped on the cash bail system. These critics note that most inmates in county jails are unsentenced. They are simply waiting for trial because they cannot afford bail.
That commonly-cited statistic might be misleading. Many of the incarcerated people have already made bail and are just waiting on their paperwork to clear. Indeed, a number of these individuals probably voluntarily surrendered and are booking in and booking out. They might never make it past the waiting room. Furthermore, a pure OR release program gives judges no discretion in this area. Semi-violent offenders, like stalkers, are right back out on the street, regardless of the facts.
So, complete bail reform, which several states have tried, is pretty much a bust. In New York, the pure OR system lasted less than a year.
Nevertheless, OR is a good option in many cases. The procedure varies slightly in different jurisdictions. Generally, a review board considers the charged offense and the defendant’s criminal record, then gives a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Although there is no formal hearing, Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys can usually advocate for defendants before review boards, at least informally. This advocacy could be the difference between OR release and a money-based release option.
Traditional Jail Release Options
Cash bail, or a bail bond, is still available in Wright County. Typically, and forgive us if we sound like a broken record, the sheriff sets a presumptive bail amount based on the defendant’s criminal history, if any, and the severity of the offense. The presumptive amount is usually around $700 for most misdemeanors and $1,500 for most felonies. The exact amount varies significantly, mostly according to the facts of the case.
Bail Per Charge in Minneapolis, MN
Also, bail is usually per charge as opposed to per arrest. So, if Dexter faces three felony charges, his bail will probably be a minimum of $4,500. Due to the facts of the case, it will probably be a lot higher than that. Indeed, the sheriff might not even set a presumptive amount in such cases. More on that below.
Cash Bail in Minneapolis, MN
Financially, cash bail is like a rental property security deposit. If the defendant fulfills all bail conditions, the county refunds most of the cash bail money. In addition to appearing at trial, some other common pretrial release conditions include reporting to a bail bond agent, remaining in the county, and avoiding any further legal trouble.
The cash bail system has been around for thousands of years. Most people value their money above all else. The prospect of losing it is usually sufficient to convince people to toe the line, at least temporarily. The obvious problem with this system is that, for many people, $4,500 might as well be $45 million.
Bail “Bond” in Minneapolis, MN
So, a bail bond is usually available. Essentially, a bond is an insurance policy. If your car is damaged, your auto insurance company assumes the financial risk. Similarly, if a defendant fails to meet all bond conditions and the judge revokes it, the bail bond company assumes the financial risk. Most bail bonds companies charge about a 15 percent premium to issue these insurance policies.
Bail Revocation in Minneapolis, MN
Speaking of bail revocation, if the judge revokes your bond, Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys can help you turn yourself in, as outlined above. Usually, a lawyer has all the ducks in a row, including a new bond. This alternative is much better than having a warrant pop up during a random traffic stop.
In serious cases, such as drug trafficking or felony drug possession cases, cash bail or a bail bond might not be an immediate option. Either the sheriff doesn’t set an amount or the amount is so high that the defendant cannot possibly pay it. Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys can set or reduce bail at the arraignment, which usually happens about three days after the arrest.
Initial determinations are usually limited to criminal record and nature of the offense. At the arraignment, the judge considers a number of other factors, such as the defendant’s:
Links to the community,
Ability to skip bail,
Threat to individual witnesses or victims,
Ability to pay, and
Willingness to abide by conditions.
Attorneys usually settle these matters out of court. For example, the prosecutor might agree to reduce the bail amount if the defendant agrees to electronic monitoring.
Procedural Defenses for Drug Crimes in Minneapolis, MN
Jail release gives a defense attorney a head start. Pretrial release does more than eliminate the presumption of guilt. Release also allows defendants and Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys to work together as partners. However, there is still a long race to run.
To seal the deal, the case must usually involve a legal defense. A defense gives the jury the legal opportunity to acquit a defendant. So, the better the defense, the riskier trial becomes. That risk increases a Wright County prosecutor’s willingness to deal.
What the 4th Amendment Means
Many drug possession cases involve a procedural defense. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers either need a search warrant or probable cause before they can seize evidence of a crime, including contraband substances. If Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys excludes the evidence, the state’s case normally collapses like a house of cards. An officer’s testimony that the defendant had drugs is insufficient.
Search Warrants in Minneapolis, MN
Most drug trafficking cases involve search warrants. Typically, several agencies work together on these arrests, which culminate with a search warrant. Frequently, officers depend, at least in large part, on a confidential informant’s testimony. CIs receive money or leniency in exchange for such testimony. Therefore, a Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys can often successfully challenge drug trafficking search warrants. Many people will say nearly anything for love or money.
Probable Cause Exception
But most drug possession cases don’t involve search warrants. Events happen too quickly. Therefore, the prosecutor must rely on the probable cause exception. Over the years, courts have created a few specific doctrines, such as:
Consent: Owners may allow officers to search their property, such as a house or a wallet. Consent is an affirmative, voluntary act. There’s a big difference between assent and consent. Furthermore, if officers threatened to get a warrant if the defendant didn’t agree to the search, that consent is arguably involuntary.
Plain View: This exception frequently comes up in vehicle possession cases. If officers see contraband in plain view, like a bottle of prescription painkillers, they may seize it without a warrant. This right is only available if the officer was lawfully in that place at that time. So, reasonable suspicion for the stop, or lack thereof, could be an issue.
Stop and Frisk: The reasonable suspicion rule also applies in these stops. Reasonable suspicion means specific, articulable facts which point to criminal activity. In this case, that criminal activity must be illegal weapon possession. During this pat-down, officers can seize any other contraband they see, or rather feel, in plain view, or rather plain touch.
Other Constitutional rights sometimes come into play. Cell phones are a good example. The Supreme Court has ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in all content past the home screen. If officers want to read your text messages or take other such actions, they must either get a warrant or obtain owner consent
Stingray Devices in Minneapolis, MN
Incidentally, some Minnesota law enforcement agencies have Stingray devices. These sophisticated gadgets, which are also known as IMSI catchers or cell site simulators, send false signals which trick cell phones into connecting with a fake tower, allowing police to track the owner’s movements. Some Stingrays can read your text messages, call records, Internet search history, and even tap into your phone calls.
Needless to say, these devices are quite controversial, so law enforcement agencies keep their mouths shut about the specifics of the gadgets they own.
Substantive Drug Possession Defenses
The legal definition of possession offers a defense in many cases. Proximity to the drugs, by itself, is not enough. The state must also prove the following elements:
Control: Theoretical possession is not enough. Prosecutors must establish that the defendant exercised control over the drugs. The drugs must not have been in a locked container, like a glove compartment, and must not have been in someone else’s possession, such as a joint passed around at a party.
Knowledge: This element must be more than theoretical as well. A defendant must know more than “something illegal” is in a bag. As a matter of fact, the defendant can literally be sitting on a stash of drugs, and not possess the stash for legal purposes.
At trial, the prosecutor must establish all elements of possession, and all the other elements of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the highest standard of proof in Minnesota law.
What is Deferred Disposition in Minneapolis, MN?
Normally, a Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys files a pretrial motion in disputed possession matters. If the judge rules favorably, the judge will throw the prosecution out of court.
If the defense is strong enough, many prosecutors offer good deals before that hearing. They do not want to risk losing everything because of an adverse judicial ruling. Deferred disposition is usually available in drug possession cases.
Prosecutorial deferred disposition is like pretrial diversion. If the defendant successfully completes program requirements, the prosecutor dismisses the case. Judicial deferred disposition is like probation. If the defendant successfully completes probation, the judge dismisses the case.
Both these outcomes have significant advantages, but there are significant risks as well. So, before you accept one, review the situation thoroughly with an experienced Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys.
Connect with a Minneapolis, MN Drug Crime Lawyer
Most drug possession cases have a relatively happy ending. For a free consultation with an experienced Ambrose Law Firm, DWI & Criminal Lawyers Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys. Convenient payment plans are available.
What is considered a firearm for MN ineligible in possession offenses?
Minnesota law prohibits certain people from possessing firearms or ammunition. If convicted of being ineligible in possession of a firearm, it subjects the person to a mandatory minimum prison sentence according to the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, it is crucially important to not only know who is ineligible to possess firearms or ammunition, but also to know what is considered a firearm or ammunition.
Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court evaluated whether a distress flare launcher is considered a firearm in State v. Glover. You know, those flare guns that people use to shoot in the sky when they are stranded on a deserted island in hopes that the airplane flying thousands of feet above them will see it? Yeah, those.
Believe it or not, the prosecution charged someone with ineligible in possession of a firearm while possessing a distress flare launcher in Glover. The underlying offense was not even violent. It was burglary, a theft from a retail store of items totaling less than $1,000. Upon finding the suspect the officers located the flare gun from his pocket. Because the suspect had previously been adjudicated delinquent of a “crime of violence”, then he was prohibited from possessing a firearm. To which, the prosecution believed he should be charged with ineligible in possession of a firearm and face a mandatory minimum prison sentence.
Thankfully, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined that the term “firearm” should be limited to weapons. That is, objects designed for attack or defense, which a flare launcher designed for use in times of distress is not so designed. When the case was at the Minnesota Court of Appeals, it decided that a flare launcher could qualify as a firearm if it was used, or was intended to be used, as a weapon. The Minnesota Supreme Court determined that was erroneous because “use or intended to use” is not included in the statute. Therefore, according to the plain text of the statute, you cannot transform an object into a weapon by its situational use. The Court concluded by reasoning that the adding different devices into the statutory definition is something that is best left to the legislature.
In many cases the question about whether an object is considered a firearm under Minnesota law, is obvious. Guns that shoot bullets is the routine ineligible in possession of a firearm fact pattern. Generally, only when devices fall into these gray areas about whether the device is a firearm is where the dispute occurs. The Minnesota Supreme Court in this case limited firearms to weapons that are designed for attack or defense. In State v. Haywood, the court examined whether an air-powered BB gun fit the definition of a firearm. The court determined it was not a firearm for purposes of the ineligible in possession statute, because it used compressed air and not gunpowder or any other explosive force. At that time, the court did not decide that the device had to be a weapon to fit the definition of a firearm like it did in this case.
High Percentage of False Positives in Bite Mark Evidence
Forensic odontologists who analyze bite mark evidence rely on two foundational premises. The first is that human skin is a suitable medium to capture data from, which as we discussed in our last post, is not true due to the elasticity of the skin. The second premise is that human dentitions are unique. The theory behind uniqueness is that each individual person has a unique bite mark and that bite mark can be traced back to that specific person.
As stated in a 1984 paper, “human dentitions are unique beyond any reasonable doubt.” The paper discussed an experiment that studied 397 bitemarks that were made in wax wafers. Each bite mark was measured using 12 parameters. The scientists conducting the experiment assumed, without any evidence, that the parameters had no correlation whatsoever. By assuming that, the scientists were suggesting that two bite marks having the same parameters is less than one in six trillion. This paper was purely theoretical, not empirical, meaning the scientists did not actually compare the bite marks to one another.
The claims stated in the 1984 paper were later criticized and debunked in a paper published in 2010. The 2010 study looked at 344 dental casts and measured them by using a 3-D laser scanner. The study revealed that matches occurred much more often than the 1984 theoretical study claimed. In fact, the 2010 study revealed 32 matches when looking at a single five tooth dentition. Studies similar to the 1984 study have flooded the courts suggesting that bite mark analysis and bite mark testimony can produce reliable conclusions. However, according to the National Academy of Sciences Report, even with the guidelines and techniques that are in place, experts had a variety of results, and there was a high percentage of false positive matches of bite marks in controlled comparison studies.
Studies similar to the 1984 study set the foundation for how bite mark evidence would be used in the courtroom. Not only was it assumed that skin was a suitable medium to capture data from, it was also assumed that human dentitions are unique beyond any reasonable doubt. This made it appear that the use of bite mark evidence was valid and would be helpful. However, modern science has exposed the flaws found in the old science. Courts still allow bite mark evidence to be admitted into court which has resulted in numerous wrongful convictions on the basis of bite mark analysis. Both of the foundational premises that bite mark analyses were built off of have been largely criticized and debunked proving that the use of bite evidence should not be a valid practice allowed in the courtroom.
How Do Prosecutors Prove Drugged Driving in Minnesota?
Drunk driving has long been a serious public safety issue in the United States. Drugged driving is a less appreciated, but no less severe problem. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reports that 12.6 million Americans admitted to driving while under the influence of illicit drugs in 2018 alone. Highway safety experts believe the true figure is likely far higher.
You may be wondering: How do prosecutors prove drugged driving in Minnesota? As they cannot measure BAC level, the state is forced to rely on other forms of evidence. Here, our Mankato DWI defense attorneys explain the key things you should know about the evidence that prosecutors use to prove drugged driving in Minnesota.
An Overview of Evidence Prosecutors Use to Make a Drugged Driving Case
When Minnesota prosecutors bring a DWI criminal charge, the driver’s measured blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level is often a big part of the case. As you may know, the legal limit for most drivers in Minnesota is 0.08. Drugged driving cases are somewhat more complicated. Here are four key categories of evidence that Minnesota prosecutors use to prove guilt:
Observations By the Police Officer: Many drugged driving cases are built on the foundation of the observations and testimony of the responding police officer. An officer may testify as to their belief that the motorist was unlawfully impaired.
Admissions from the Defendant: If you admit to using a controlled substance, your statement can (and often will) be used against you as evidence in a drugged driving case. Your words can easily be taken out of context. To protect your rights, remain silent and ask to speak to a lawyer.
Statements from Witnesses: The statements of third party witnesses, including passengers in the vehicle, can also be used as evidence to establish that the driver was unlawfully impaired at the time of a DUI arrest.
Chemical Testing: Finally, in some drugged driving cases, some form of chemical testing may be conducted. If an illicit substance is found in a person’s system, that may be evidence that they were impaired at the time of the arrest.
Ultimately, every drugged driving case involves its own unique sets of facts and circumstances. If you or your loved one was arrested and charged with a DUI for alleged drugged driving in Minneapolis, MN, a defense attorney will help. Among other things, your lawyer will review the evidence to determine if the prosecution can meet its legal burden.
Contact Ambrose Law Firm, DWI & Criminal Lawyers Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys for Immediate Help
At Ambrose Law Firm, DWI & Criminal Lawyers Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys, our Minnesota DWI defense attorneys have the skills and legal expertise to defend the full spectrum of drugged driving charges. If you or your family member was arrested for drugged driving, we can help. Contact us today at (612) 547-3199 or get in touch with us through our website. From our office, we handle drugged driving charges throughout Minneapolis, MN.
Accused of a Federal Crime in Minnesota? Understand What You May Be Facing and Protect Yourself
Federal criminal charges are nothing to laugh at; this is as serious as it can get when it comes to legal problems. Incarceration rates are close to 90% and neither probation nor clemency is easily granted. The federal government does not play around.
The process of a federal criminal case is cold and calculated. The crimes are usually higher profile and our government upholds its reputation for law and order. You need to find protection as soon as possible.
The consequences that you may face will be much steeper. It’s quite different from state court and you need to know what will happen if you have to be tried at that level.
Federal Criminal Charges
The federal government, if they weren’t already involved, can bring state charges up to their level for several reasons. There is even a chance that their involvement may come as a surprise.
If the Feds decide to come after you, they will do so with force and with a list of as many charges as they can. They can even charge you for crimes that others have committed if you were present. RICO laws are written vaguely for a reason.
The federal government may choose to take over your case if you are accused of the following:
crossing state lines during the commission of a crime
the death of someone during the commission of a crime
drug charges involving manufacturing, trafficking, or selling large quantities
kidnapping
arson
internet crimes
illegal weapons
You do not want to be charged by a federal prosecutor in your judicial district if there is an option to take it to a lower court. At the same time, it is essential that you are aware of the process you could be facing if it proves impossible to bring your charges back into the state’s hands.
Organization of Minnesota Federal Court
The U.S. is broken up into federal districts with their own federal judges and prosecutors that oversee all related cases involved in the area. Minnesota belongs in District 8 with official courts in Duluth, Fergus Falls, St. Paul, and Minneapolis.
Court costs and fines can be astronomical.
Judges are appointed by the president and serve for life. This gives them a lot of power over everyone around them, especially when it comes to sentencing. There are suggested minimum and maximum sentence options for them to follow and federal judges tend to sentence harshly.
Sentencing
Sentencing occurs after a plea or a trial, but at a completely different time, at its own hearing. You will be assessed and assigned a criminal level that will determine how severely you will be punished. The number is based on what you are charged with, your criminal history, and your current behavior.
The judge will use it to determine the length of prison time that they assign someone that they find guilty. These judges have a tremendous amount of freedom in the sentencing phase, and they don’t have to worry about the politics of reelection.
Double Jeopardy doesn’t exist between state and federal governments. If the state fails in charging you with a crime, then the federal government can choose to charge you again for that same crime. You have to be protected.
Acquire Experienced Protection – Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys
We don’t want your case in federal court and there may be a chance to bring it back to the state. The first thing that you should do is contact a local lawyer who is experienced in Minnesota’s judicial district, specifically.
Ambrose Law Firm - Minneapolis Criminal Defense Attorneys is ready to zealously protect you in criminal court. Contact us to schedule a free evaluation of your case.
Contact Details
Ambrose Law Firm, DWI & Criminal Lawyers
120 South Sixth St #2050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 547-3199
https://minneapoliscrimdefenselawyer.com
AMBROSELEGAL@ICLOUD.COM
Website: https://minneapoliscrimdefenselawyer.com
Google Site: https://sites.google.com/view/ambroselawfirmmncrimdefattys/home
Google Folder: https://mgyb.co/s/2fEvA
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse