A Hennepin County jury found Ramsay Law Firm’s client not guilty of DWI and not guilty of careless driving after a trial involving a cannabis urine screen and testimony from a Drug Recognition Evaluator (“DRE”).
The State accused our client of driving while impaired by cannabis. He drove the wrong way on a one way street in downtown Minneapolis. A deputy trained in drug impairment investigation believed he observed signs of impairment. The State obtained a urine sample, and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension reported a positive screen for a cannabis metabolite.
On paper, that may sound like a strong drug DWI case. But the real question was not whether the State had evidence. It was whether the State could prove to a jury at trial that our client was impaired by cannabis when he drove.
After hearing the evidence and its limitations, the jury returned two not guilty verdicts.
The Urine Test Did Not Prove Cannabis Impairment
The BCA urine test did not establish that our client was under the influence of cannabis while driving.
The screening result indicated 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC, commonly called carboxy-THC. That distinction was critical because carboxy-THC is a nonpsychoactive metabolite of THC. The BCA’s own urine testing documentation identifies that limitation and explains that this substance is reported from screening results only.
In plain English, the result could support prior cannabis exposure. It could not establish that our client was experiencing the impairing effects of THC when he drove.
The BCA scientist admitted under Ramsay’s cross-examination that he could not determine when our client consumed cannabis, how much he consumed, how he consumed it, or how often he used it. Most importantly, the scientist conceded that he could not say our client was impaired by cannabis at the time of driving.
That is a very different proposition from simply telling a jury that someone “tested positive for cannabis.”
Cannabis Use Is Not the Same as Cannabis Impairment
Minnesota law recognizes the distinction between cannabis use and cannabis impairment. At Ramsay’s request, the jury instructions made that distinction explicit: consuming THC before driving does not, by itself, establish a DWI offense.
When the State prosecutes a cannabis impairment DWI, it must prove more than prior cannabis use. It must prove that the driver was under the influence of cannabis while driving.
The question was not whether our client had ever consumed cannabis, whether a cannabis metabolite appeared in his urine, or whether an officer believed cannabis might explain his observations. The question was whether the State proved cannabis impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
For a deeper explanation, see our discussion of driving after consuming marijuana, THC, or cannabis products.
Challenging Drug Recognition Evaluator Testimony
The prosecution also relied heavily on observations from a deputy trained as a Drug Recognition Evaluator, commonly called a DRE.
DRE testimony can sound highly scientific to a jury. Officers discuss drug categories, eye examinations, pupil measurements, divided attention tests, pulse rates, and specific “indicators” of impairment. But technical language does not make an opinion scientifically correct.
A defense lawyer has to know the DRE program well enough to test the officer’s conclusions against the government’s own training materials. We have written before about what happens when a DRE skips or incompletely performs the 12-step drug evaluation process.
Knowing those materials was critical here. For example, the deputy reported observing Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, or HGN, and attempted to connect his observations to possible cannabis impairment. But NHTSA’s drug recognition training materials teach that cannabis typically does not cause HGN.
Pointing out that inconsistency exposes the gap between the officer’s training and his conclusion. The DRE title does not close that gap.
At Ramsay Law Firm, we immerse ourselves in the manuals, protocols, toxicology, and science behind the opinion. Then we compare what the officer actually observed with what the government’s own training says those observations are supposed to mean.
That is how a police opinion gets tested rather than simply accepted. The same approach applies to field sobriety testing, where standardized procedures, environmental conditions, physical limitations, and the officer’s administration of the tests can all matter.
Wrong Way Driving Was Evidence, Not Proof of Cannabis Impairment
We did not dispute that our client drove the wrong way. But a traffic mistake and drug impairment are not the same thing.
The wrong turn was a fact for the jury to consider. It was not a substitute for proving that our client was under the influence of cannabis when he drove.
Our defense focused on the logical possibility that he made a navigation mistake while unimpaired. We did not have to prove that possibility. We challenged whether the State’s evidence established its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The careless-driving charge presented a separate question. Unlike the cannabis DWI charge, careless driving does not require proof of impairment. The State still had to prove that offense’s own elements.
The jury also returned a not guilty verdict on that charge. It was a separate victory, not an automatic consequence of the DWI acquittal.
What This Verdict Does, and Does Not, Mean
This verdict does not mean cannabis cannot impair driving, that every urine test is useless, or that every DRE opinion is wrong. It certainly does not mean every DWI case will end in a not guilty verdict.
It means the State still has to prove its case. A positive drug screen, a police officer’s opinion, and a traffic mistake do not eliminate that burden.
When the government accuses someone of driving under the influence of cannabis, its evidence must establish impairment at the time of driving, not merely past cannabis use.
Searching for the Best DWI Lawyer in Minnesota? Ask About Jury Trials.
If you are looking for the best DWI lawyer in Minnesota, look beyond what a lawyer’s website says. Ask two direct questions:
When did you last try a DWI case to a jury? When did you last win one?
DWI jury trials demand more than negotiating a plea agreement or handling routine court appearances. A lawyer has to select a jury, cross-examine police officers and forensic scientists, understand scientific evidence, recognize weaknesses as testimony unfolds, and explain complicated concepts in a way ordinary jurors can understand.
Reading about jury trials is not the same as trying them.
At Ramsay Law Firm, jury trial experience is not something we did years ago and placed in an attorney biography. As of September 2026, we have tried five DWI cases to juries this year. Our record is 4-0-1. That record counts jury trials, not individual charges.
Another recent victory involved blood alcohol testing. A Sherburne County jury found our client not guilty of both DWI charges after we challenged the impairment evidence, the timing of the blood draw, and the reliability of the laboratory testing.
Prior results do not guarantee what will happen in another case. Every case depends on its own facts, evidence, witnesses, and legal issues. But when comparing DWI lawyers, recent jury trial experience is a reasonable place to start.
We think this is important because preparing to challenge the State’s evidence before a jury shapes how we investigate a case from the beginning. You can review more of our DWI case results and trial victories here.
DWI Defense Is Forensic Work
We didn’t learn the science in this case the night before cross-examination. Ramsay Law Firm has spent decades studying the subjects the government uses to investigate and prosecute DWI cases.
Our training includes Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, and Minnesota’s breath testing instruments. We study toxicology, blood testing, breath testing, urine testing, pharmacology, DRE protocols, and forensic science.
Chuck Ramsay is Board Certified in DWI Defense Law by the National College for DUI Defense, whose certification program is accredited by the American Bar Association. In 2026, NCDD also presented him with its Stephen Barnard Memorial Trial Advocacy Award, which recognizes an aggressive, creative, and ethical trial practice defending people accused of impaired driving.
Those credentials are not decorations. They reflect the preparation required to challenge specialized scientific and technical evidence. A lawyer cannot effectively challenge evidence he does not understand.
Questions to Ask in a Minnesota Cannabis DWI Case
A Minnesota cannabis DWI lawyer should not stop investigating when a report says “positive urine test.”
What substance did the laboratory actually detect? Was it an active psychoactive drug or an inactive metabolite? Was the result a preliminary screen or a confirmed finding?
What can the laboratory establish about timing and impairment? Can it determine when the substance was consumed, or whether the person was under the influence when driving occurred?
Does the officer’s opinion match the investigation? Did the observations match the suspected drug category? Did the officer complete a DRE evaluation and follow roadside testing procedures? Do the government’s own training materials support the conclusions offered at trial?
Ultimately, the question in a cannabis impairment DWI case remains: Can the State prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt?
Another Minnesota DWI Jury Victory
We are proud of this result, but the key lesson is how we defended the case.
We did not need to pretend the wrong way driving never happened, prove our client had never consumed cannabis, or establish that every police observation was mistaken. We forced the State to confront the limits of its own evidence.
The urine result could support past cannabis exposure, but it did not establish impairment. The officer’s observations required scrutiny, not automatic acceptance. The jury had to decide whether the State proved the charges, not whether its accusation sounded plausible.
The result was not guilty of DWI and not guilty of careless driving.
Looking for a Minnesota DWI Lawyer?
If you have been charged with a cannabis DWI, drug DWI, alcohol DWI, or another impaired driving offense in Minnesota, do not assume that a police report, laboratory result, or DRE opinion ends the case.
Have lawyers who understand how it works and are prepared to challenge it in court examine the evidence.
If you are comparing the best DWI lawyers in Minnesota, do not take a marketing claim at face value. Look at the training, the science, the recent trials, and the results. Then decide for yourself.
Charged with a cannabis or drug DWI in Minnesota? Call Ramsay Law Firm at 651-604-0000 or contact us to discuss the evidence in your case.
Ramsay Law Firm
The Gold Standard of Minnesota DWI Defense
