The Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision filed July 23, 2012, upheld the license revocation of an intoxicated driver who was taking his friend to the emergency room. The driver challenged the district court’s order on the basis that he was wrongly denied the opportunity to assert a defense of necessity.
An implied consent proceeding is a legal challenge to a driver’s license revocation for an alcohol-related driving offense. It is separate from criminal charges. Failure to challenge a driver’s license revocation will result in an alcohol-related driving offense being permanently entered on the alleged offender’s driving record. Even a dismissal in the criminal proceedings is not enough to remove the revocation from a driving record. The only remedy is to challenge the revocation in the separate civil implied consent proceeding, and win. It is extremely important to challenge the revocation within the statutory filing deadline, which is thirty (30) days from the date of the offense. In cases where test results are not immediately available, the driver has thirty (30) days from the date of the notice of the license revocation.
The driver was arrested at the emergency room for driving under the influence (DWI). The driver and his friend were drinking at a party and they left in his friend’s car. While they were performing stunts in a parking lot, the driver’s friend fell out of the car and was badly injured. Even though he knew he shouldn’t drive, the driver drove his friend to the hospital because he thought it would be faster than waiting for an ambulance. A deputy sheriff was called to the hospital about a possibly intoxicated individual at the emergency room. The deputy sheriff spoke with the driver Nicholas William Solorz who admitted to drinking and driving. After his arrest, the driver submitted to testing which revealed an alcohol concentration of .10. As the test results revealed that the driver’s alcohol concentration was over the legal limit, his driver’s license was revoked under the implied consent law.
The driver challenged the revocation of his driver’s license, and asserted a necessity defense. The necessity defense is an affirmative defense available for criminal DWI cases. The district court found that the necessity defense is not available in implied consent cases, and sustained the driver’s license revocation. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order finding that the necessity defense is not a valid defense in an implied consent or license revocation challenge because it is not specified in the implied consent statute. The Court of Appeals reasoned that if the legislature had intended for the defense to be available in implied consent cases, it would have been enumerated in the statute. And, while there are defenses available in implied consent cases that are not enumerated in the statute it is only because Minnesota appellate courts have determined that those defenses are essential to uphold constitutional rights or to protect truly innocent drivers.
A license revocation can result in increased severity of future charges, as well as increases in insurance premiums and possible employment bars. A license revocation can have lifelong effects, therefore, it is important to have a knowledgeable attorney fighting for you. Call Frame Law, LLC today at (651) 361-9830 for a free consultation.