A recent Supreme Court case called
Missouri v. McNeely is having a significant effect on DWI laws in Minnesota. As a result, a
Caplan and Tamburino may be able to keep you from being convicted on your recent DWI or even
get a DWI conviction from the past removed from your record. If you've
had a recent or past DWI, please call us at
612-444-5020 and meet with a lawyer today to see if we can help you.
McNeely rule requires that each police officer must acquire a warrant before administering
a breath, blood or urine test to discover someone's blood alcohol
content during a DWI stop. If the officer who took your DWI test did not
get a warrant, then we may be able to help you get your DWI thrown out
of court or removed from your record.
In general, the courts do NOT allow new rules to be applied to cases that
have had a final judgment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
that a new rule for criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases
that are not yet final. This means that if you still have the right
to appeal your DWI conviction, you will likely be able to benefit from the new
Also, if your case is
final and you have exhausted all of your appeals then you may still be able
to receive the benefit of the new rule if the Minnesota Supreme Court
determines that the
McNeely case fits into one of two exceptions.
The first exception is only at issue when the rule is considered to be
"substantive". The new
McNeely rule, however, is not substantive. Therefore, this exception likely will
However, the second exception may apply to the new
McNeely rule which would mean that we could obtain reversals on DWI convictions
that are very old. And there are strong arguments for determining that the
McNeely rule should be applied to old cases.
The question of whether
McNeely applies retroactively will have to be answered by Minnesota's Supreme
Court soon after their upcoming decision in
State of Minnesota v. Brooks. The court will apply the
Teague analysis and will likely find that the
McNeely rule does constitute a "new rule" under the
Teague definition. This means that the court should determine that the
McNeely rule does apply to cases that are not final.
However, the court will also need to consider whether the
McNeely rule applies to finalized cases. In general, a "new rule" is
not applied to finalized cases unless it falls within one of the two exceptions.
McNeely rule is procedural and not substantive, it cannot fulfill the first exception
but justifiable arguments do exist to say that the
McNeely rule fulfills the second exception. Therefore, the
McNeely rule will likely be applied retroactively to cases that are not yet final
and may also apply to cases that have already been finalized.
Call our Minneapolis criminal defense lawyers 24/7 at 612-444-5020!
Chambers v. State, 831 N.W.2d 311, 323 (Minn. 2013); citing
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 300-10 (1989).
Chambers at 326.
State v. Brooks, A11-1042, 2012 WL 1570064 (Minn. Ct. App. May 7, 2012), review denied
(July 17, 2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 133 S. Ct. 1996 (U.S.
State v. Brooks, A11-1043, 2012 WL 1914073 (Minn. Ct. App. May 29, 2012), review denied
(July 17, 2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 133 S. Ct. 1996 (U.S. 2013)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).