Skip to content
Minneapolis DWI Lawyer

Minneapolis DWI Lawyer

Minneapolis DWI Lawyer / DUI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson has over 30 years of experience defending people charged with DWI/DUI. Lynne is based out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and she practices successfully throughout the State of Minnesota including, St. Paul, Edina, St. Louis Park, Minnetonka, Maple Grove, and all of state.

DWI Laws Effective July 1, Minneapolis, MN

  • New very important DWI laws went into effect July 1.
  • Now, by statute, all blood and urine tests require a search warrant.

Additionally, blood draws cannot be taken by force.  So, a defendant can refuse to submit to a blood draw even when a search warrant has been obtained.

Need The DWI Attorney Minneapolis?

The DWI/DUI laws in Minnesota are counted among the toughest in the nation. More often than not, this has led to DWI/DUI charges even against vigilant individuals.

This is primarily because while many individuals consider themselves to be in control after one or two drinks, in actuality, now, they could be above the legally permissible alcohol limit. That is because the limit is now .08 or more.  Historically, it was legal to drive with an alcohol concentration of .15.  Times have changed.

If you or any of your family members are accused of DWI or DUI, it is best to hire the services of a professional DWI attorney such as Lynne Torgerson as soon as possible. You can achieve your legal objectives only through the right approach and diligence of an attorney such as Lynne Torgerson.

Castles
Minneapolis DWI Lawyer

DWI Defense Strategies

Ms. Torgerson has extensive experience in the area of DWI/DUI. She is knowledgeable in the area of constitutional rights, a must for a DWI/DUI lawyer. Further, she has worked in the area of the source code, an issue of national concern.

She also has involved herself in taking on CMI, Inc., the manufacturer of the Intoxilyzer. She also made herself a part of the Source Code Coalition.  This Source Code Coalition hired a team of experts to analyze the source code.

She also regularly handles both the criminal case and implied consent case of a DWI/DUI. It is very important to immediately hire a lawyer when you get charged with DWI, because you only have 60 days to initiate an implied consent case. 

If you fail to do so, the DWI/DUI is permanent, even if you win your criminal case. This is a fact of which even many lawyers are not aware, and, even more so, of which clients are not aware. Thus, you need to move very quickly.

DWI consequences can be very serious.

They can include jail time, driver’s license revocation, driver’s license cancellation, forfeiture of your vehicle, a felony conviction, and prison.

Standards of excellence, a strong style and a creative DWI defense strategy is essential to achieve the legal goals of clients who are accused of driving while intoxicated. Perhaps one of the most effective DWI defense strategies is to make the maximum out of each and every opportunity presented by the prosecution. 

These are several valuable DWI defense strategies which a lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson exhibits. And this is one reason why a lawyer of her stature and reputation is required to attain the best possible results in your DWI case.

Punishments for different levels of DWI in Minnesota.

Firstly, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the State of Minnesota too often exhibits zero tolerance in DWI/DUI cases. Moreover, this is one reason why the punishment or consequences for the DWI offenders is quite stringent. The punishment and penalties of a DWI conviction depend on the degree of the charge.

Secondly, while a misdemeanor fourth degree DWI offense has a maximum punishment of incarceration of 90 days and a $1000 fine, a first-degree DWI conviction which is a felony, could lead to a critical punishment which could impose an incarceration of up to seven (7) years and a fine of up to $10,000.

With that said, if you find yourself or any of your loved ones charged with a DWI offense, it is crucial to seek the services of a highly professional and qualified DWI attorney. Unless you hire the services of a capable and industrious DWI lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson, it is very difficult to get rid of serious DWI charges.

Ms. Torgerson is reputed for winning difficult Minnesota cases.

Ms. Torgerson believes in preparing thoroughly for all her cases and is extremely creative in her approach towards representing clients with DWI charges against them.  After all, when hard work meets opportunity, luck happens!  Ms. Torgerson is reputed for winning difficult cases. 

Furthermore, she has an excellent track record of developing and maintaining relationships with her clients, which she accomplishes by listening, thoroughness, preparedness, attention to detail, experience, strength, vigorousness, standards of excellence, as well as compassion for her clients. With over twenty-eight (28) years of legal experience on her side, she is your best choice for a DUI / DWI lawyer.

Plus, to run through the legal system is not very easy. Too often, without the proper legal representation, it will run over you like a train.  However, with a lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson on your side, it is possible to achieve best results even when things look impossible.  Ms. Torgerson loves to accomplish the impossible.

An early professional intervention has the potential to change the entire course of the case. CALL NOW FOR A CONSULTATION!

Scale of Justice

Minneapolis Assault Attorney

If you find yourself charged in a criminal case, whether federal or local, and you seek representation in Minneapolis or throughout the state of Minnesota, contact Lynne Torgerson today for your free consultation

Consultation Request

A Palace Interior

LYNNE TORGERSON, ESQ. SUCCESSES:

DWI Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins elimination of felony criminal vehicular operation charge.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtained very favorable result in criminal vehicular operation case.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with felony 1st degree criminal vehicular operation, great bodily harm. He had allegedly driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and, had an accident, whereby his passenger was allegedly injured. A felony conviction would have worked potential havoc in his life, having immigrated to the United States as a child with his parents, attended high school in the Twin Cities, but not yet having become a citizen. Very fortunately, after approximately three (3) years of litigation, shortly before trial, the State agreed to reduce the charge to a gross misdemeanor. Important to note is that the plea agreement needs to provide for a stay of not more than 364 days, to avoid immigration consequences.  Excellent work Ms. Torgerson!

Lynne Torgerson wins criminal DWI case and civil implied consent license revocation.

Lynne Torgerson’s client was charged with DWI with an alcohol concentration over the legal limit, and her client’s driver’s license was revoked.  Pursuant to excellent strategy, Ms. Torgerson quickly filed and served the implied consent petition, initiating the civil case. 

Then, at the implied consent hearing, very fortunately, Ms. Torgerson’s client’s implied consent driver’s license revocation was rescinded, on the grounds that the Attorney General’s Office failed to sufficiently prove that the simulator solution was changed in a timely manner.  In conclusion, this result thereby caused her client’s DWI criminal charge to be dismissed.  Superb results Ms. Torgerson!

Lynne Torgerson, DWI Lawyer, obtains dismissal of DWI.

Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with DWI in the Hennepin County District Court.  Ms. Torgerson obtained a dismissal of the DWI.  In conclusion, her client was only convicted of careless driving.  Good work Ms. Torgerson!  State v. E.L.

Lynne Torgerson wins dismissal of underage drinking and driving charge.

Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with misdemeanor underage drinking and driving (UDD) and speeding, out of Carver County, Minnesota.  Very fortunately, Ms. Torgerson obtained a stay of adjudication on behalf of her client, and when the conditions were met, his underage drinking and drive charge was dismissed, leaving only a speeding ticket.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson successfully avoids hit and run charges from being brought against her client.

Ms. Torgerson’s client was a young female attending a university in St. Paul.  She also planned on attending graduate school.  Oftentimes, working to protect a client’s future is important.  Additionally, there was an investigation into an automobile accident potentially involving Ms. Torgerson’s client, as to whether Ms. Torgerson’s client had been involved in an auto accident and left the scene without leaving the required name, address, automobile insurance information, etc. 

In this type of circumstance, it is often a good idea to retain a lawyer on a “pre-charge” basis, before any charges are brought.  This type of crime is colloquially called a hit and run, or leaving the scene of an accident.  In conclusion, after having invoked her client’s constitutional Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent and to counsel, corresponding with the City Attorney’s Office, and handling other insurance related issues, no charges were ever brought against Ms. Torgerson’s client. 

In addition, sometimes it is a good idea to retain counsel before making any statements to the police, inasmuch as people have rights to remain silent and to counsel.  So doing may result in criminal charges never being brought, and protecting your future.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minneapolis DUI/DWI Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins DWI in Hennepin County.

Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins misdemeanor DWI/DUI in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was a business professional.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had no prior DWI conviction.  Avoiding a DWI conviction makes a person eligible to subsequently obtain expungement of the criminal records and help with future employment opportunities. Well done Ms. Torgerson.

DWI Attorney Lynne Torgerson obtains release of client from Detox Center.

Lynne Torgerson successfully obtained the release of a client placed in the Detox Center in Hastings, Minnesota.  When you encounter law enforcement and you are highly inebriated, the police may take you into custody and place you in the Detox Center in Hastings, Minnesota. 

The placement typically is for 72 hours.  This can cause problems with employment, and can be very expensive, up to several hundred dollars.  Ms. Torgerson can help you or your loved one release from this facility, as she has helped others obtain release in the past.  This involves obtaining an Order from a Judge of the Dakota County District Court.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minneapolis DUI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins implied consent portion of DWI/DUI case.

Lynne Torgerson won the implied consent portion of a DWI/DUI case out of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was a banking business professional.  He was stopped and charged with a criminal DWI charge, and, his driver’s license was revoked pursuant to the implied consent law. 

In Minnesota, to keep a DWI off of your record, a person has to avoid a DWI conviction in the criminal case, and, initiate and win a civil implied consent case.  Fortunately, Ms. Torgerson obtained a rescission of the driver’s license revocation thereby winning the implied consent case.  This enabled Ms. Torgerson’s client to keep the DWI completely off of his record.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

A Man With Handcuffs

Case Law Updates

When is a warrant required in DWI/DUI cases?  Breath test:  no warrant required.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a warrant is not required for a breath test, on the grounds that a breath test is a search incident to an arrest.

Blood and urine tests require warrant.

The United States Supreme Court and Minnesota Supreme Courts have recognized in the Birchfield and Beylund cases that a search warrant is required for a blood test or a urine test.  Police officers must obtain a search warrant before a blood or urine test may be obtained in a DWI case.

No right to counsel where police get a search warrant for a blood or urine test.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held in State v. Rosenbush (Minn. 2019) that where the police get a warrant for a blood test there is no limited right to counsel.  Additionally, although a defendant has a choice whether or not to allow a blood or urine test, a defendant has no right to counsel where the police have obtained a search warrant for a blood or urine test.  State v. Rosenbush, Minn. (2019).

There is a right to refuse a blood or urine test where the police get a warrant, but the police are not required to advise of the right to refuse.

The search warrant statute, Minnesota Statute §171.177, requires the police to inform a defendant that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test (presumably pursuant to a warrant) is a crime.  However, police need not inform defendants that they can refuse the test.  State v. Rosenbush, (Minn. 2019).    A person can refuse or blood or urine test, although it may be a crime to do so.

The limited right to counsel only exists in implied consent cases where the advisory is read; it does not exist in criminal cases.

In State v. Hunn, the Minnesota Supreme Court or Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the limited right to counsel only exists in implied consent cases where the Implied Consent Advisory is read, and does not apply in criminal cases.

Where police obtain a search warrant, the failure to advise a defendant that test refusal is a crime does not require suppression of test results.

In State v. Mike, (Minn. Ct. App), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that where a search warrant is obtained for a test, the failure to advise a defendant that test refusal is a crime does not require suppression of the test results.  This was so held even though Minn. Stat. §169A.51, subd. 3 requires police officers to inform drivers that for blood and urine tests, test refusal is a crime.

Does a driver in a DWI case lose his right to counsel because the police obtain a search warrant?

A defendant challenged his convictions for first degree test refusal and driving after cancellation, arguing that his constitutional right to counsel was violated.  Additionally, he also argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt on an unadjudicated conviction of first degree driving while impaired.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that because the police obtained a warrant for defendant’s blood, he did not have a limited right to counsel.  Affirmed.

State v. Howell, A19-0119, Chippewa County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Commentary:  it appears that this holding could not be more poorly reasoned.  An arrestee has a limited right to counsel in a DWI case.  An arrestee should not lose their right to counsel because the police get a search warrant.  Furthermore, eEven if the police obtain a search warrant, a person still has the right to refuse, with the consequent need to speak with counsel about this critical decision.  Woefully, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already upheld this decision.

Police must warn that refusal to test is a crime even after they obtain a search warrant to draw blood.

A patrol sergeant obtained a search warrant to draw and test defendant’s blood after she drove into and injured a child with her car and failed field sobriety tests.  Moreover, the blood test showed that defendant’s alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit, and the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked her driver’s license.

Defendant petitioned for judicial review, arguing that her license could not be revoked because the sergeant had not given her the statutory warning that refusal to test is a crime.  In conclusion, the trial court upheld the revocation.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that defendant’s driver’s license cannot be revoked based on a blood test of .08 of more, unless the officer directing the test gives the warning that refusal to test is a crime.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals also stated that where a search warrant for blood is obtained in a criminal vehicular operation case, a blood test may be forced even if a defendant refuses.  Reversed and remanded.

Jensen v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, A19-0243, Pipestone County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Amendment of complaint at trial to charge different subsection of criminal vehicular operation.

Defendant challenged his convictions for criminal vehicular operation and fourth degree driving while impaired challenging the amendment of the complaint at trial to charge a different criminal vehicular operation offense, and the entering of convictions on both offenses.

Noting that the amended complaint did not charge defendant with a new or different offense, but only charged defendant under a different subsection and eliminated the requirement that the defendant be under the influence of a controlled substance, the Minnesota Court of Appeal found no error.

However, 4th degree DWI is a lesser included offense of the criminal vehicular operation offense.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State v. Fry, A18-1837, Koochiching County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Minnesota Court of Appeals concludes that DWI implied consent advisory violates due process.

Defendant challenged the trial court’s order sustaining the revocation of his driver’s license under the implied consent law.  The trial court rejected defendant’s argument that the implied consent advisory misinformed him of the potential criminal penalty for refusing to submit to a blood test and violated due process.

The trial court’s findings suggested that defendant submitted to the test because he understood that he would be charged with a crime if he refused, and that the advisory did not accurately inform defendant as to the legal consequences of test refusal.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the revocation violated due process.  Reversed and remanded.

Schhneider v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, A19-0673, Isanti County.

Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Disclosure of urine test in DUI case did not violate Data Practices Act.

Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor driving while impaired and driving after cancellation in Nobles County, State of Minnesota.  Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.  The Minnesota Court of Appeal concluded that because the results of defendant’s urine test was validly disclosed to the trial court by law enforcement for law enforcement purposes in the search warrant application, defendant’s claim of a violation of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act was without merit.  Affirmed.

State v. Cruz, A19-0344, Nobles County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Earlier court minutes of defendant’s prior DWI conviction was admissible evidence.

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree felony DWI.  He appealed.  He argued his conviction must be reversed because (1) the evidence was insufficient to established 3 qualified prior impaired driving incidents within the preceding 10 years and (2) the trial court erred when it admitted hearsay evidence.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the certified copy of the 2012 court minutes of defendant’s prior DWI conviction was admissible competent and reliable evidence and same was sufficient to establish defendant committed a qualified prior impaired driving incident in 2012.  Affirmed.

State v. Permann, A19-0296, Itasca County.

Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether a certified driving record was insufficient to prove the defendant received notice of a prior driver’s license revocation?

Defendant was convicted of felony 1st degree driving while intoxicated.  On appeal, defendant argued that the State failed to provide that she had three (3) prior qualified impaired driving incidents under Minn. Stat. §169A.24, subd. 1(1).  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s certified driving record was insufficient to prove that defendant received notice of a prior license revocation, without which the State cannot demonstrate the required three (3) prior qualified impaired driving incidents.  Reversed and remanded.

State v. Moore, A19-1055, Stearns County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether the prior Wisconsin driver’s license revocation could be used for enhancement?

Defendant was charged with four (4) counts of 3rd degree gross misdemeanor DWI.  These were enhanced because of a prior Wisconsin alcohol related driver’s license revocation.  The trial court dismissed the gross misdemeanor charges on the grounds that the Wisconsin revocation could not be used for purposes of enhancement because the defendant was not represented by an attorney.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the trial court holding that the prior Wisconsin DL revocation was a proper basis for enhancement, regardless of whether defendant was represented by counsel.

State v. Jones, A20-0161, Hennepin County.

Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

DWI/DUI conviction upheld because traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Defendant was convicted of driving while impaired (DWI).  On appeal, defendant argued that the traffic stop was not supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trooper’s suspicion that defendant had violated a traffic statute by parking on the highway was reasonable.  Affirmed.

State v. Huhnerkoch, A19-1981, Redwood County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Failure to produce a signed search warrant invalidates search.

Defendant was stopped for DWI.  The police stated that they obtained a search warrant for a blood draw.  Defendant brought a motion to suppress the results of the test on the grounds that the State failed to produce a signed search warrant.

Officers testified that they obtained a search warrant signed by a judge.  The trial court denied defendant’s motion.  Defendant appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that the officers’ testimony was not sufficient, and the State failed to produce a signed copy of the search warrant.

State v. Skaudis, A19-1741, St. Louis County.

Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Giving a police officer a true partial name constitutes crime of false information to police officer.

Defendant was convicted of giving a fictitious name to a peace officer in violation of Minnesota Statute §609.506, subdivision 1.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals confirmed defendant’s conviction.  Defendant argued that because he gave police a name that was part of his full name, the evidence was insufficient to prove his gave a fictitious name.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that (1) a fictitious name for purposes of §609.506, subdivision 1 includes names that uses only parts of a full legal name; and (2) because the State proved that defendant gave police a partial name with intent to obstruct the police investigation, the State presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction.

State v. Thompson, A19-0253, Minnesota Supreme Court.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether the forfeiture of defendant’s 1985 Ferrari worth approximately $75,000 should be reversed?

Defendant was convicted of 3rd degree DWI while he had a B card restriction.  Concurrently, his 1985 Ferrari worth approximately $75,000 was forfeited.  On appeal, defendant challenged the forfeiture on the grounds (1) that he was not convicted of a designated offense; and (2) the forfeiture of his Ferrari violated the 8th Amendment prohibition on excessive fines.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the forfeiture.  Usually, a vehicle may be forfeited only if a person is convicted of 2nd degree DWI or greater.  However, the statute also provides for forfeiture if a defendant is convicted of any level DWI when the defendant also has a restriction on their driver’s license.  Hence, defendant was convicted of a designated offense.

Additionally, the Minnesota Court of Appeals simply concluded that the $75,000 vehicle forfeiture was not grossly disproportionate.

This case is a very good example of why forfeiture laws need to be struck down.

Jensen v. 1985 Ferrari, A19-1927, Dakota County.

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether mailing notice of suspension to defendant’s last known address is sufficient notice?

Defendant was convicted of petty misdemeanor driving after suspension of his driver’s license.  On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that evidence that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety mailed the notice of suspension to defendant’s last known address was sufficient to establish the notice element of the offense of driving after suspension.

State v. Johnson, A20-0124, McLeod County.

DWI Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

FAQs about DWI Lawyers in MN

It’s possible that the prosecutor dismisses the case before it reaches trial. If that doesn’t happen, the court can dismiss your case if the judge decides to do so. An attorney may decide to challenge the legality of the traffic stop or challenge the results of the test.  To have your case reviewed, give Lynne Torgerson a call at 612-339-5073.

First-time offenders could be convicted of DWI in Minnesota. If your first DWI is not dismissed or reduced, it will likely be charged as a misdemeanor if there are no aggravating factors. The penalty could be up to 90 days in jail with a maximum fine of $1,000.

Yes. It’s possible that your attorney can get your charges reduced. Your attorney could successfully argue for a lesser charge such as reckless driving. However, this happens on a case-by-case basis. Contact Lynne Torgerson to have your case reviewed!

There are no mandatory minimums for a first offense. However, mandatory minimums start to apply upon the second offense within 10 years. Here are some of the mandatory minimums and their conditions, which may be applicable in your case:

Second DWI: 30 days in jail, with at least 48 hours served in jail/workhouse and eight hours of community service for each day served less than 30, or more.

Third DWI: 90 days in jail, with at least 30 days served consecutively in a local jail/workhouse, or more.

Fourth DWI: 180 days in jail, with at least 30 days served consecutively in a local jail/workhouse.  Since a 4th DWI in 10 years is also a felony, a prison sentence could also be executed.

Fifth+ DWI: One year in jail, with at least 60 days served consecutively in a local jail/workhouse, or, possibly a prison sentence.

The court may decide to send the offender to intensive probation, requiring at least six (6) days of jail with the rest of the sentence on home detention.