TMD v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Anoka County
A successful DWI defense often begins by carefully examining whether law enforcement had legal grounds to initiate the investigation in the first place. In this case, Mark D. Kelly challenged the basis for the arresting officer’s actions, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to believe his client had been driving while intoxicated.
The District Court agreed.
The court found that the arresting police officer did not have probable cause to believe Mark Kelly’s client was driving while intoxicated. Because the officer lacked probable cause, the court held that law enforcement did not have legal authority to invoke Minnesota’s implied consent advisory.
As a result, the District Court issued an order rescinding the revocation of the client’s driving privileges and ordered that the client’s driver’s license be reinstated.
Every DWI case presents unique legal and factual issues. Careful review of the evidence, the officer’s observations, and the procedures followed during the investigation can make a significant difference in the outcome of a driver’s license revocation proceeding.