This week our firm scored a major victory when the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in our favor in the Thompson case. It is now settled that Minnesota cannot criminally charge a driver for refusing a urine or blood test. One of our attorneys, Daniel Koewler, who actually argued the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, recently spoke with local media outlets about the decision and its future impact on DWIs in the state.
The bottom line is that while the issue of urine and blood test refusals has been put to bed, a new issue has now surfaced: the questionable validity of previous DWI convictions based on refusing a urine or blood test. If the refusal law is unconstitutional how can these previous convictions stand?
This new challenge to old convictions will depend heavily on the retroactive effect of constitutional rulings. As we pointed out in our previous blog post, when a law is ruled unconstitutional, it is as if the law never existed.
Obviously, any DWI conviction on someone’s record is bad, and now we have a way to go back and attack any conviction based on the unconstitutional law.
If you have been convicted of DWI for refusing a blood or urine test call Ramsay Law Firm to discuss your options.
