Mike Brandt represented a client in Isanti County, Minnesota, on charges of felony DWI from an incident occurring in October of 2017. Mike’s client was stopped on a rural road in Isanti County for speeding. After the officer made contact with her, he did not observe any odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech or other indications of intoxication. Notwithstanding that fact, the officer had Mike’s client get out of the car and perform Field Sobriety Tests. While he was attempting to start the test, Mike’s client engaged in behavior that the officer found concerning and placed her under arrest for Obstructing Legal Process. The officer eventually noted indications of impairment and arrested her for a DWI.
After Mike’s client was arrested, she submitted to a test which revealed an alcohol content of 0.19. Because this was her fourth offense within 10 years, she was charged with a felony DWI. Additionally, her driving privileges were canceled as Inimical to Public Safety and the State forfeited her brand new vehicle.
In preparation for the case, Mike reviewed all of the evidence, including the police reports and all of the squad videos. Mike challenged whether or not the officer had a basis to expand the scope of the seizure and require his client to perform Field Sobriety Tests. Mike first litigated this issue in the civil driver’s license revocation challenge, called an “Implied Consent” proceeding. At the hearing, the officer testified and Mike submitted to the Court a copy of the squad video. After submitting written arguments to the Court, the Judge ruled that Mike’s client was illegally required to perform Field Sobriety testing and rescinded the revocation—basically taking away the loss of license.
Mike then went to Court on the criminal charges. At the hearing, the State agreed to amend the charge down to a gross misdemeanor based upon the legal issues. Mike’s client did not accept this offer and went forward with challenging the expansion of the seizure in the criminal case. Again, the officer testified and the Court received a copy of the squad video into evidence. After receiving written arguments from Mike and the State prosecutor, the Judge ruled that Mike’s client was illegally required to do the Field Sobriety testing and dismissed the charges.
The above actions resulted in all charges being dismissed against Mike’s client, the client getting her driver’s license back, and the vehicle which was being forfeited returned to her.