Notable Case Wins
RESULTS ARE WHAT SEPARATE US FROM EVERYONE ELSE
Ramsay Law Firm built its reputation as a DWI defense firm through a track record of success. We don’t win every case, but we win most. Whether that means getting the charges reduced, getting a license revocation reduced, getting a forfeited vehicle returned, or getting the entire DWI case thrown out, we go into every case with the motto “Every DWI Case Is Winnable.”
Here’s a sampling of the types of cases we’ve won, enough to give a broad overview of how many different types of cases we’ve succeeded with. It starts with our victories at the district court level, county by county, judge by judge. These are examples of some of the cases we’ve recently won, including links to redacted copies of actual winning orders, signed by the judges.
Sometimes, we need to win a case on appeal. Whether appealing our own clients cases, or taking up other defense attorney’s client’s cases for appeal, Ramsay Law Firm is also known for its success on appeal. Below the listing of district court DWI wins, we’ve included some of our successful DWI appeals.
District Court Victories:
State v. AM, Pretrial Resolution, Third Degree DWI, .18 Breath Test, Underage Consumption
May 2026
The government charged our client with Third Degree DWI after a breath test reported an alcohol concentration of .18. We fought both the criminal charges and the civil license revocation.
At the Implied Consent hearing, we moved the Court to order the government to provide the source code for the breath testing software. The Court granted our motion. The government has not produced the software, and a sanctions hearing has been scheduled. In the meantime, the Court ordered our client’s license reinstated.
We also moved for the source code in the criminal case. Rather than continue litigating that issue, the state agreed to a very favorable resolution. Our client pleaded guilty to underage consumption and driving. That is not a DWI. It is a violation of Minnesota’s “not a drop” law.
The result: no DWI conviction and license reinstatement while the civil case continues.
State v. BB, Jury Trial, Not Guilty, April 2, 2026, Breath Test: .17
Our client was charged with Second Degree DWI. He had a .17 breath test and one prior conviction within 10 years, giving him two aggravating factors. He also had a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). Before trial, we discovered serious maintenance flaws. The government agreed to dismiss the license revocation challenge and reinstate his license. The prosecution followed that lead and agreed not to use the breath test. We went to trial on one charge: driving under the influence of alcohol.
The jury deliberated for less than 10 minutes and returned a not guilty verdict. This was despite the fact that the arresting officer was a decorated two-time “DWI All-Star.”
This was a clean sweep of both the criminal case and the civil driver’s license case.
State v. JC, Jury Trial, Not Guilty, March 23, 2026
The state charged our client with Third Degree DWI after his urine test showed an alcohol concentration of .14. He also had a prior DWI within 10 years of this arrest.
This was a critical case for our client because a conviction would likely have triggered deportation consequences. He had previously hired another lawyer. After reading the reports and viewing the video recordings, that lawyer told him there was nothing he could do to help and advised him to plead guilty.
Before trial, we challenged the search warrant for our client’s urine sample. The judge agreed, found that the sample was unconstitutionally obtained, and suppressed the test. The state decided to proceed to trial on the impaired DWI count.
The government called the police officer as its only witness and submitted the video recordings as evidence of impairment. We used the Standardized Field Sobriety Testing manual to cross-examine the officer. Ultimately, the officer agreed under cross-examination that he had failed to properly administer the tests. The jury found JC not guilty of DWI.
TL v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Prescription Adderall DWI, Charges Dismissed, License Revocation Rescinded
March 16, 2026
The government charged our client with DWI after a police officer accused him of being impaired. A Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) agreed. Police obtained a search warrant for his blood, which revealed the presence of amphetamine.
The amphetamine was legally prescribed Adderall, taken as directed for ADHD. At a suppression hearing, we challenged the DRE’s conclusions and used the state’s own toxicology evidence to show that the blood level was within the therapeutic range for prescribed use, with no evidence of impaired driving.
The Court rescinded the license revocation and ordered that our client’s driving privileges and record be fully restored.
The state voluntarily dismissed the criminal charges.
State v. TV, Jury Trial, Not Guilty of Third Degree DWI, Guilty of Fourth Degree DWI
Deputies arrested our client after they saw him run a stop sign and then drive off the road. They arrested him after field sobriety tests. A breath test showed his alcohol concentration was over .16. Prosecutors charged him with Third Degree DWI, and the state revoked his license for one year.
We challenged the license revocation. The judge rescinded the revocation and ordered his license reinstated.
We went to trial and had the breath test suppressed. Given the facts of the case, we could not pull off a complete clean sweep. But his license revocation was reduced from one year to 30 days. The criminal case was reduced from a gross misdemeanor to a misdemeanor with no jail time.
State v. MR, Case Dismissed, .16 Blood Test
Our client came to us nearly 10 years after being charged with gross misdemeanor DWI for having an alcohol concentration of .16 or more. He had been living in another state and never returned to Minnesota for court after the charge was filed. As the years passed, the warrant stayed active. That meant every traffic stop and every interaction with law enforcement carried the same question: could this be the moment he gets arrested and extradited to Minnesota?
At the time of the incident, police obtained a blood sample without a warrant. Since then, the United States Supreme Court has clarified that warrantless blood tests are generally unconstitutional absent specific circumstances. Beyond the constitutional issue, time also affects every criminal case. Evidence becomes stale. Memories fade. Witnesses become unavailable.
After discussing both the legal issues and the practical challenges of prosecuting a nearly decade-old case, the prosecutor made the right call and dismissed the case for insufficient evidence.
State v. NS, DWI Dismissed, Blood Test, February 24, 2026
Our client was arrested after losing control of her vehicle and driving into the side of a business. The stakes were high: mandatory reporting to the medical board, possible loss of a medical license, and immigration consequences serious enough to trigger removal proceedings. All of it rested on a blood test. A blood test that came back at .047, under the legal limit.
After careful review, the state dismissed the case in the interest of justice.
SH v. 2021 Dodge Ram 1500 Vehicle Forfeiture, Vehicle Returned, February 6, 2026
The government sought to forfeit our client’s 2021 Dodge Ram after a felony fleeing police charge. Civil forfeiture cases are serious litigation. The government sues the property itself, and the procedural and statutory hurdles are real. These cases often drag on for years. Winning requires persistence, precision, and deep knowledge of Minnesota’s forfeiture statutes.
After reviewing the forfeiture statute, Daniel Koewler explained that vehicle forfeiture was inappropriate because SH was never convicted. As a result, he was able to get the state to return the truck to its rightful owner.
State v. AS, .09 Breath Test, DWI Dismissed, No Immigration Consequences
January 30, 2026
For our client, a DWI conviction would not have meant only probation or a fine. It would have meant removal from the only country he has ever known. It would have meant separation from his wife and children. It would have been a life sentence. Our client was arrested by local police after a breath test revealed an alcohol concentration of .09.
He is here legally under DACA. He came to the United States as a very young child. He has no memory of his country of birth or of any family there.
We resolved the case without a DWI conviction. We stopped a life sentence. A family stays together.
State v. TS, .27 Breath Test, Complete Dismissal
December 4, 2025
Police arrested our client for DWI. A breath test indicated an alcohol concentration of .27.
We challenged probable cause to arrest our client because police entered her home, arguably without permission.
The state dismissed both DWI charges against our client as the contested hearing began. When the state realized we were right, it dismissed the DWI charges. Now, we move on to fight the civil license revocation.
State v. TH, Aitkin County, .09 DWI, November 7, 2025
TH v. Commissioner of Public Safety, License Revocation Overturned, October 14, 2025
Our client was charged with DWI after blowing a .09 on a DMT breath test device. He had hired a lawyer who ultimately said there was nothing he could do to help and that he should just plead guilty. After scouring the maintenance records and reviewing hours of video recordings, we convinced the state to dismiss both DWI charges. Our client pleaded to an open bottle violation, and all other charges were dismissed.
Ultimately, this led to the Office of the Attorney General agreeing to bring a motion to overturn the license revocation as well.
State v. DJ, Aitkin County, .10 Boating While Impaired, October 2, 2025
The state agreed to dismiss all DWI charges after we discovered that the machine used to test our client was faulty. This resulted in approximately 70 cases being thrown out for the entire year that machine was in service. Ultimately, this discovery put hundreds of cases around the state into question. It is unclear how many cases were ultimately won because of this discovery.
On October 2, 2025, the state filed a dismissal of the complaint.
SD v. Commissioner of Public Safety, .16, Third Degree DWI, February 23, 2026
Our client was arrested on December 7, 2025, for Third Degree DWI after he blew a .16 on the DataMaster DMT. At the civil hearing, we challenged whether law enforcement vindicated our client’s limited right to counsel. The Court heard testimony from the arresting officer and ruled from the bench that our client was not given adequate time to contact an attorney. The Court rescinded our client’s license revocation.
State v. K.D.Y.
07/06/22
K.D.Y. came to us after being pulled over for driving on a cancelled license. Our client admitted that he had consumed meth earlier in the day, and law enforcement obtained a search warrant for his blood. Lab analysis of the blood sample revealed the presence of methamphetamines, and because our client also had prior DWI convictions, he was charged with Gross Misdemeanor DWI.
We watched all of the body worn camera videos and came to one conclusion: K.D.Y. never should have been arrested in the first place. Using our experience attacking field sobriety tests, we convinced the judge to throw the entire criminal case out. We then convinced the Attorney General’s office to avoid a losing battle with us, and they agreed to administratively throw out the license revocation too!
K.L. v. Commissioner of Public Safety, LICENSE REVOCATION OVERTURNED
09/07/22
Our client was stopped by police for failing to come to a complete stop at two stop signs. Police arrested K.L. after administering Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, and took him to the jail for a breath test. The datamaster breath test machine reported a result of .10, and the state revoked his license.
Our law firm obtained squad video of the stop; body worn camera video of the field sobriety tests, and of the interaction with officers at the jail; years of data from the breath test machine; and other vital documents. We hired an expert physicist to discuss what went wrong with the test in this case. We planned to challenge the following issues:
1) Constitutionality of the Stop;
2) Denial of Right to Counsel;
3) Denial of Independent test; and,
4) Motioned the court for additional discovery, e.g., the software that runs the breath test machine.
Ultimately, the court agreed that the state could not meet its burden and overturned our client’s driver’s license revocation!
C.M. v. Comm’r of Public Safety, LICENSE REVOCATION OVERTURNED
04/25/22
Our client was stopped by a police officer for what the officer believed to be a suspicious vehicle sitting in a parking lot after dark while the park was closed. The officer said that as he drove toward the vehicle, the suspect vehicle drove away which “heightened” his suspicion of criminal activity. The officer stopped the vehicle several blocks away.
At the court trial the officer claimed that there had been recent burglaries in the area. Yet we pointed out that he didn’t include this information in his report and suggested this may not be accurate. The officer agreed that there was nothing indicating the sole, elderly occupant had been outside the vehicle attempting a break in. The officer also agreed although the park was closed, the parking lot was not. Finally, the officer agreed the driver committed no driving violations as he followed the vehicle.
In the end, the judge agreed with us that the stop was unconstitutional and rescinded the revocation. Grateful for another victory for one of our clients!
State v. KB, Felony DWI Dismissed.
03/08/22
Last year the State of Minnesota charged KB with felony DWI. Police had stopped his vehicle for speeding and ultimately arrested him. A breath test result was 0.10. Because KB was previously convicted in a military court of felony DWI, the state enhanced this first-time Minnesota DWI charge to a felony. [Minnesota law says if a driver has ever been convicted of a felony DWI in Minnesota or under another state statute, any subsequent DWI may be charged as a felony.]
We challenged the felony DWI and argued to the court that since KB hadn’t been previously convicted under either Minnesota law or another state statute that enhancement wasn’t permissible. Last month the judge issued an order throwing out the felony DWI charges.
Ultimately KB pleaded guilty to a first-time misdemeanor DWI and avoided the felony conviction.
J.E.S. v. Comm’r of Public Safety — Ignition Interlock Violation Victory – Driver’s License Reinstated
09/17/21
Our client was required to enroll in Minnesota’s Ignition Interlock Program due to multiple DWIs. Because of the number of prior infractions, the state had cancelled his driver’s license and he was required to completely abstain from alcohol.
With just a few months remaining in the interlock program the interlock device registered a false positive of 0.028. Based on this reading the state once again cancelled his driver’s license and required him to restart the program (and jump through the onerous “hoops” required to enroll in the program).
Our client retained us to fight the faulty device reading. We called an expert at the hearing and exposed the limitations of the scientific method used to test his breath. In the end the Court found in our client’s favor and threw out the breath test result and reinstated our client’s license.
State v. S.E.P — NOT GUILTY! Jury Acquits Client of All DWI Charges (Second Degree DWI)
09/14/21
The state charged our client with a Second Degree DWI for having a breath alcohol concentration of .14 with two prior DWI convictions, and the Department of Public Safety revoked and cancelled his driver’s license. (In February this year a just rescinded the revocation as a sanction for failing to provide the source code pursuant to its order.)
We brought the matter to trial. Earlier this month a jury found this client Not Guilty of DWI on both counts after a trial. Our client was facing a maximum possible sentence of one year in jail and a $3,000, with a minimum 90-day jail sentence.
This was a physical control case where our client was sleeping in his vehicle at the side of the road with the keys. The jury decided Minnesota’s DWI laws are not intended to punish people who are trying to do the right thing, even when technically they may be in violation of those absurd laws. Because of the acquittal and the civil, “implied consent victory,” our client not only beat the criminal charges, but also has no infraction on his driving record.
State v. A.E.B. — Gross Misdemeanor Third Degree DWI Reduced to Careless Driving
08/13/21
The state charged our client with a Gross Misdemeanor DWI in 2019 due to a prior DWI license revocation. We pushed it all the way to trial when, on the eve of trial, the state agreed to dismiss all the DWI charges in exchange for a plea to careless driving. There was no license revocation in this case.
State v. G.V.M. – Prosecutor Completely Dismissed Gross Misdemeanor DWI
06/09/21
We recently shared our victory in G.V.M. v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, where the court threw out our client’s 1 year license revocation for trest refusal and fully reinstated our client’s license to drive. We noted that we were off to fight criminal case.
Here’s the update:
We forwarded the Court’s Order from the driver’s license case to the state along with information about our client. GVM had taken steps to address any potential underlying chemical dependency issues which were well documented. We requested the state to dismiss the criminal charges in light of the ruling. The Order didn’t bind the state, and the prosecutor was free to relitigate the issue.
Fortunately, the state agreed and served us this week with a notice dismissing all charges!
G.V.M. v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety – License Revocation for Test Refusal Thrown Out
05/19/21
A police officer stopped our client for crossing the centerline. The officer claimed that our client nearly struck the officer’s vehicle, and only by taking evasive action did the officer avoid a head-on collision. Review of the squad video actually supported this testimony.
After stopping our client, the officer conducted field sobriety tests. Our client failed the sobriety tests and refused the roadside breath test, at which point the officer arrested him and took him to the city jail. In jail, the officere read the Minnesota Breath Test Advisory to our client, letting him know that under Minnesota law it is a crime to refuse breath testing.
GVM refused to take this breath test too. As a result, the Department of Public Safety revoked his license to drive for 1 year, and the prosecutor charged GVM with a Gross Misdemeanor DWI – test refusal. Since our client was employed in a highly sensitive government position, he came to us for help.
We obtained all the reports and recordings, scrutinizing them for any glimmer of hope. We looked at the squad recording and noticed the officer had committed several traffic violations seconds before encountering our client on the roadway. The officer rolled through a stop sign at an intersection, and then turned left shortly before encountering our client on a dark roadway as he was rounding a curve. GVM swerved, but we argued the swerve was in reaction to the officer’s failure to yield for our client.
The court agreed. “Where an officer’s negligent behavior materially contributes to the purported traffic violation given as the basis for the stop, it cannot be said that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion.”
Ultimately the Court rescinded the license revocation as a result of the officer’s unconstitutional stop of our client’s vehicle. He got his license back, along with a clean driving record.
Now we’re off to fight the criminal case….
STATE V. M.J.S. and M.J.S V. COMM’R OF PUBLIC SAFETY – Gross Misdemeanor DWI Test Refusal Dismissed; License Revocation Overturned
05/07/21
Last December a young police officer pulled over MJS for speeding. The officer claimed MJS’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, and ordered our client out of his vehicle to perform field sobriety tests and to take a preliminary breath test. The officer ultimately arrested our client and brought him to the local police station where he requested a breath test of our client. MJS refused to take the breath test. Because MJS refused the officer revoked his driver’s license for 1 year, and the state charged him with driving under the influence of alcohol and Gross Misdemeanor test refusal.
MJS hired our firm to fight on his behalf. We filed a lawsuit challenging the revocation and pleaded not guilty to the criminal charges. At a combined criminal and civil license revocation hearing Chuck Ramsay cross-examined the officer who arrested our client. Under Ramsay’s brutal cross examination the officer admitted that there was no odor of alcohol, MJS’s speech was normal and he did not behave like someone under the influence of alcohol. Eventually – despite his claim that he believed MJS was drunk – the officer admitted that he was improperly trained, and did not know whether he conducted the field sobriety tests consistent with the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) course on DWI detection and standardized field sobriety testing (SFSTs).
Ultimately the Court found that the State failed to meet its burden to prove that there was probable cause to arrest our client for driving under the influence of alcohol, and dismissed the criminal charges. The Court also rescinded the license revocation.
We are grateful for this victory. This is a total win for our client!
M.J.H. v. Comm’r of Public Safety – Ignition Interlock Extended for Three Years: Rescinded
04/20/21
The DPS extended our client’s driver’s license cancellation for not providing the minimum of 30 samples in a 30-day period. We obtained a copy of our client’s ignition interlock logs from the interlock company and discovered that our client actually blew 34 times in a 30 day period. We provided these logs to the State, noting the error. Eventually the Interlock company admitted its mistake! We uncovered all the evidence we needed to prove that our client did have over 30 blows in a month. We won our challenge, and the violation was rescinded.
State v. B.L.L. – Gross Misdemeanor DWI reduced to Petty Misdemeanor
04/20/21
On October 2, 2020, our client crossed a centerline and struck semi-truck at highway speeds. After extracting our client form her vehicle, she was transported to the hospital where her blood was drawn by hospital staff and tested at the hospital. It was later determined that our client had a .189 blood alcohol content. She was ultimately charged with 3rd Degree DWI. We were able to point out to the prosecution that the blood test result was not valid. The hospital staff did not use a BCA blood kit, lacked chain of custody, tested serum (not whole blood) and had other “foundational” issues. We were also able to prove the lack of evidence demonstrating impairment. After speaking with the State, our client pleaded guilty to a petty misdemeanor of failing to stay right of center. The DWI was reduced to a 4th Degree DWI, stayed for one year, and will be dismissed provided B.L.L. does not commit a similar offense.
State v. G.D.G. – Felony Theft of Services: Dismissed
04/20/21
The State charged G.D.G. with Felony Obtaining Services without Payment. He gave a false name at the time he was admitted to the hospital on two different occasions allegedly in an attempt to avoid payment in excess of $30,000 for treatment.
Our client had chemical dependency issues in addition to severe physical ailments. He completed in-patient treatment and is doing well in recovery. We were able to arrange payment of the outstanding balances with a health insurance company, and our client paid the small remaining balance out-of-pocket. Based on the extraordinary efforts of G.D.G. to address his chemical dependency and given the balance was paid, the State filed a dismissal of the charges.
State v. D.S.C. – Second Degree DWI and Vehicle Forfeiture Returned and Reduced Charges
03/25/21
Our client was stopped for speeding and after the officer administered field sobriety tests, ultimately arrested our client for 2nd Degree DWI. The DataMaster test result was a .17. Because our client had a previous DWI, the state charged him with 2nd Degree DWI. Police forfeited his vehicle.
We filed a lawsuit challenging the vehicle forfeiture and sought to have a contested hearing in the criminal case. Ultimately, we convinced the state to dismiss the second degree charges. DSC pleaded guilty to third degree DWI without jail or other sanction. Without a second degree DWI conviction, the state returned the vehicle.
State v. J.V.A.
03/18/21
Our client (JVA) was stopped for speeding last year. The officer administered field sobriety tests and ultimately arrested her for DWI. The DataMaster breath test results were .092 and .087, and the state charged her with 4th degree DWI.
JVA, a medical doctor, hired us to challenge the charges. We demanded a contested hearing where were able to demonstrate the officer failed to follow his training when administering the breath test. Generally, breath test operators are required to observe a test subject for at least 15 minutes before testing to ensure they don’t belch, burp, regurgitate, or place anything in their mouth. Here, rather than strictly following his training, the officer left the room, and was unable to observe JVA. Since officer couldn’t testify what occurred during the period of time he left the room, the judge found the test results were invalid and unreliable.
Based on this ruling the state agreed to dismiss the DWI charges. Instead of facing a DWI conviction, she paid a speeding ticket.
L.R.D. v. Comm’r of Public Safety
03/09/21
Last year another criminal defense attorney contacted our firm seeking our help. Her client had been arrested and charged with a DWI. Because his breath alcohol concentration was over the legal limit, the state also revoked his license to drive for 90 days. The government was unwilling to voluntarily reinstate his license.
After reviewing the materials we formed the opinion that the state could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence the alcohol concentration was over the legal limit (the standard in civil, license revocation cases). We were then retained to assist the attorney for that matter.
After obtaining additional documents we contacted the government to explain how the test was deficient. This week the government agreed they could not prove that his alcohol concentration was 0.08 or more with the uncertainty of measurement. They agreed to administratively rescind the revocation, reinstate his license without payment of the $680 reinstatement fee, and removed the incident from his driving record. Science won.
The bulk of our work is for our own clients, but legal consultation and representation for other attorneys and their clients is a growing part of our practice. We welcome the opportunity to help other attorneys with their cases, particularly those that involve forensic science issues. As you can see, it can really make a difference.
State v. D.K.M.
03/08/21
Today the prosecutor completely dismissed our client’s Gross Misdemeanor DWI case with a .25 breath test result.
Late last year our client was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Officers from multiple agencies arrived on the scene. Following the accident, our client was brought to a local police department where he submitted to a breath test that produced a result of .25. He was subsequently charged with two counts of Gross Misdemeanor, 3rd Degree DWI.
Meanwhile, another officer from another police department mailed our client a citation for “failure to drive with due care.” After carefully reviewing the statutes and analyzing Minnesota appellate cases, we advised our client to pay the fine for the charge of failure to drive with due care. This resulted in a “conviction,” and was entered with the District Court.
At the first appearance we discussed this with the prosecutor. We explained to the state that we believed the GM DWI charges should be dismissed as they are barred by statute. Minnesota Statute § 609.035 bars serialized prosecution for offenses arising out of the same course of conduct. The statute provides:
“… [I]f a person’s conduct constitutes more than one offense under the laws of this state, the person may be punished for only one of the offenses and a conviction or acquittal of any one of them is a bar to prosecution for any other of them.”
The fair-minded and learned prosecutor reviewed the statute and the facts of the case, and subsequently dismissed the case in its entirety without the need for judicial intervention.
While we cannot win every case we believe that with our training, experience and our “can-do” attitude we significantly improve the odds of success. If you’ve been charged with a crime and want to improve your odds of winning, call us and we will do our best for you, too!
N.T. v. Comm’r of Public Safety
03/08/21
Today we prevailed in yet another Ignition Interlock Device (IID) case. The Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) cancelled our client’s driver’s license after he provided two breath samples of 0.034 and 0.032. The cancellation brought harsh consequences, including the following requirements:
- Complete a new chemical evaluation and treatment;
- Pay $680 reinstatement “fee”;
- Take and pass another written test;
- Enroll for an additional six years on the ignition interlock program.
[Click HERE for a complete list of steps for reinstatement after cancelation. A list of revocation requirements can be found HERE.]
Our client insisted he hadn’t consumed any alcohol drinks. We filed suit and had a hearing before a judge. Our client testified about the circumstances the day of the event. While he didn’t know what caused the false positive, he was adamant that he did not drink alcohol.
We also presented testimony of a expert witness. The expert testified that these devices are not specific to ethyl alcohol, and other substances can cause a false positive. These substances include hand sanitizer, foods with sugar alcohol, and other chemicals. We also presented the data from the device that includes the device’s readings and the timing. The data demonstrates that the burn off rate was not what we would expect to see after one consumes an alcohol drink, and therefore the device was detecting something other than a consumed alcoholic beverage.
The judge agreed and overturned the cancellation. Once again our client was very happy.
We can’t win every case, but we feel we win more than any other firm fighting in this area. If you’ve got questions about your situation, please call us immediately as some timelines limit the period to challenge the revocation or cancellation.
J.V.A. v. Comm’r of Public Safety
02/22/21
Our client (JVA) was stopped for speeding last year. The officer administered field sobriety tests and ultimately arrested her for DWI. The DataMaster breath test results were .092 and .087, and the state revoked her license for 90 days.
JVA, a medical doctor, hired us to challenge the driver’s license revocation, but also to protect her medical license as well. We filed a law suit to challenge the revocation. As part of our preparation, we obtained documents from the police department, squad video recordings and video recordings made at the jail, and records from the state crime lab. We scrutinized the recordings and other records and were troubled by what we found.
At the hearing we were able to show that the police officer failed to follow his training. Specifically, breath test operators are required to observe a test subject for at least 15 minutes before testing to ensure they don’t belch, burp, regurgitate, or place anything in their mouth. Here, rather than strictly following his training, the officer left the room, and was unable to observe JVA. JVA credibly testified during that time she was burping – which adversely affects the validity of the breath test result. Her testimony was confirmed by the video recordings.
As a result the Judge ruled that the officer failed to follow the necessary procedures to ensure the test was valid, reliable and accurate, and threw out the breath test result. With no admissible evidence to support the license revocation, the judge overturned the license revocation. Our client now has a clean driving record.
T.J.C. v. Comm’r of Public Safety
01/25/21
In 2020 T.J.C. was stopped after he fell asleep in a restaurant drive through lane. After blowing a .387 on a PBT, he was arrested and taken to the county jail for alcohol testing. Given the amount of alcohol T.J.C. consumed he politely requested to void his bladder. Instead, officers – citing jail “policy” – told T.J.C. he would have to wait until after he had consulted an attorney, and completed a breath test. “It won’t be long they said.”
The officers’ first attempt at administering the test ended when the DataMaster breath test machine produced a message stating the machine had failed internal diagnostic tests. Undeterred, the officers required T.J.C. to blow into the wonky machine. Later, after T.J.C. provided two breath samples well in excess of the minimum flow rate, volume and slope; the machine rejected the test as “deficient,” as the measurements of his alcohol concentration differed by more than 0.02 g/210L.
Officers accused T.J.C. of not following instructions and blowing improperly. They again told T.J.C. he would have to wait to void his bladder after their testing was complete. T.J.C. complied, again providing two samples of sufficient flow, slope and volume. But, again, the machine rejected the test as “deficient.”
T.J.C. was in obvious agony, but the officers coldly refused his growing desperate requests to use the restroom. Jail videos show more than 90 minutes lapsed before officers finally allowed T.J.C. to relieve himself.
Upon returning to the breath testing room, officers told T.J.C. he had refused testing for having two samples rejected by the machine. He pleaded with them to give him another chance. Officers declined.
Because T.J.C. had a previous DWI within ten years the state charged T.J.C. with 2nd Degree Test Refusal, forfeited his vehicle, and revoked his license for two years.
We challenged the case on due process and scientific grounds. First, the officers’ conduct of torturing a person by denying them a basic human right and causing them terrible pain shocks the conscience – and violates a person’s constitutional due process rights.
Second, the breath test lacked basic scientific protocols. The BCA failed to calibrate the machine above a .29 rendering the instrument incapable of determining an alcohol concentration over .29, and the results were outside the measurement uncertainty.
For these reasons we were able to get the refusal thrown out. T.J.C. got his vehicle back, the criminal charges were reduced (he was impaired, but the state couldn’t use the breath test to show charges should be enhance for being over .16) and the length of the license revocation was cut in half.
Appellate Court Victories:
T.L.J. v. Commissioner of Public Safety
05/30/17
Ramsay Law Firm is going back to the Minnesota Supreme Court for the driving privileges of not just our client, but many, many drivers who were mislead by an unconstitutional form of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Implied Consent Advisory. This isn’t a “victory” in the traditional sense; it is a victory in that we’ve earned the right to plead our client’s case to the Supreme Court.
M.E.M. v. Commissioner of Public Safety
05/30/17
Ramsay Law Firm is again going back to the Minnesota Supreme Court for the driving privileges of not just our client, but many, many drivers who were mislead by an unconstitutional form of the Minnesota Motor Vehicle Implied Consent Advisory. This isn’t a “victory” in the traditional sense; it is a victory in that we’ve earned the right to plead our client’s case to the Supreme Court.
D.K.S. v. Commissioner of Public Safety
04/17/17
We don’t win all of our cases at the trial court level. Sometimes when we feel a judge made a mistake in a ruling we appeal a case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court, or – occasionally – even to the United States Supreme Court.
In this instance one of our trusted colleagues represented our client in the Wabasha District Court challenging the revocation of his driver’s license for having an alcohol concentration over 0.08. He was also charged with the crime of driving while impaired (DWI).
Although the attorney did a magnificent job demonstrating that the police erred by stopping our client’s vehicle in violation of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the judge disagreed and upheld the license revocation. The attorney brought us on board to appeal the matter.
Today the court of appeals issued its order. We won!
Our client will now have the revocation removed from his driving record and his license will be reinstated. He will also preserve his military career!
State v. Thompson
12/28/15
At the end of 2015, we persuaded the Minnesota Court of Appeals that Minnesota’s DWI Test Refusal Law was unconstitutional. They ruled that the statute was null and void, and that drivers could not be convicted for a crime if they refused to submit to a warrantless urine test. This not only had major repercussions for those who refused a urine test, but even changed the law for those who actually submitted to a test (after being threatened with the crime of refusal). This case later made it to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Jirik v. Commissioner of Public Safety
11/21/16
Our client had his driver’s license revoked after his arrest for DWI. We were hired to appeal his loss of license, and convinced the Minnesota Court of Appeals to give it back.
The Court ruled that the state violated our client’s Due Process rights when they threatened him with the crime of test refusal before demanding that he submit to a urine test. The Court concluded that Minnesota’s Implied Consent Advisory was fundamentally misleading and therefore unconstitutional.
Janssen v. Commissioner of Public Safety
08/22/16
Our client was revoked for having an alcohol concentration of twice the legal limit. For years, the State argued that we had no ability to challenge such a revocation in court. We convinced the Court of Appeals that this was wrong, and they re-interpreted Minnesota law to allow scientific challenges to breath tests that are twice the legal limit or more.
Other victories:
Breath Test DWI Victories
State v. A.M.H. A Hennepin County judge dismissed all the criminal charges against our client – and fully reinstated her driver’s license, despite a breath test result of .15.
State v. S.G.B. We convinced a Faribault County jury to find our client not guilty of DWI, even though they were presented with a breath test result of .16.
G.L.T. v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety. Our client lost his license for 180 days due to a failed breath test. We convinced the judge that the license revocation was unlawful, his license was fully restored and the revocation was taken off of his driving record.
Blood Test DWI Victories
State v. M.R.S. We convinced a unanimous Sherburn County jury of 6 to find our client not guilty of DWI, even with a blood test result of 0.15.
J.B.M v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety. We used our scientific expertise to convince a Ramsay County judge to throw out a blood test result, resulting in a dismissal of the DWI charge and erasing the license revocation from her record. This was especially important because our client regularly visits Canada, and a DWI conviction would have destroyed her ability to travel.
Urine Test DWI Victories
M.A.W. v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety. A Dakota County judge threw out our client’s urine test result of .13, after we convinced him that Minnesota’s use of urine testing is “novel and experimental in the eyes of the wider relevant scientific community.”
State v. A.N. We convinced a Hennepin County jury to rule “not guilty” to second-degree (gross-misdemeanor) DWI, despite a urine test result over .08.
K.A.O. v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety. We used our experience in handling urine test cases to get our client’s license back in Dakota County Court, and get the prosecutor to dismiss the DWI charges.
DWI Test Refusal Victories
State v. J.A.B. Our client refused to submit to testing in Hennepin County, and lost his license for a year. We went to court, and beat the license revocation outright after convincing the judge his due process rights were violated by law enforcement.
DWI Forfeiture Victories
L.J.R. v. One 2007 Hummer. A Washington County judge ordered the city to return our client’s brand-new 2007 Hummer after arresting him for refusing to submit to a breath test. He didn’t even have to pay storage costs.
B-Card Violation Victories
Our client had a “B-card” where the presence of any alcohol while driving will result in a license cancellation. Our client tested at .06 – but we used our scientific expertise to convince a Hennepin County judge to throw the case out and restore our client’s license.