Ramsay Law Firm At The Minnesota Supreme Court

Posted On October 06, 2017 Charles Ramsay

While Tom Petty has moved on to a better place (and may he rest in peace) his lyrics are going to be with us forever. That includes the old gem "The Waiting Is The Hardest Part." And he was right . . . even if he wasn't exactly talking about "waiting" for a Supreme Court decision. 

That's where we are at (along with a lot of other Minnesotans). On October 4, we held two arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court, addressing the impact that Minnesota's unconstitutional Implied Consent Law will have on drivers who:

1. had their driver's license revoked for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood or urine test, or

2. had their driver's license revoked for agreeing to submit to a warrantless blood or urine test after being told that they were "required by law" to submit because "refusal to take a test is a crime." (neither statement being true in the absence of a warrant). 

We've blogged about this topic in the past, and even outlined the strange twists and turns this legal issue has faced over the past year, but now, it's simply a matter of waiting for the Court to publish its decision.

While you're waiting, you might as well watch the argument (note: it is unlikely that you will actually want to watch the argument, unless you are an attorney or a legal-news junkie. But here it is). This argument involved drivers who refused to submit to testing -- next week we'll post the argument involving drivers who submitted to testing.

One final comment: The Minnesota Attorney General, represented by Peter Magnuson, argued first in this case. Dan Koewler of Ramsay Law Firm argued second (17:41 on the video). Mr. Magnuson's rebuttal argument begins at 34:06.

Daniel Koewler