Minneapolis DWI Lawyers & DUI Defense Attorneys2020-03-05T06:28:32+00:00

New 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.

DWI Laws Generally

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 Minnesota 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.

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, drivers license revocation, drivers 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 in Minnesota. Perhaps one of the most effective Minnesota 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

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the State of Minnesota too often exhibits zero tolerance in DWI/DUI cases. 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. 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.

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 Minnesota DWI attorney. Unless you hire the services of a capable and industrious Minnesota DWI lawyer such as Lynne Torgerson, it is very difficult to get rid of serious DWI charges.

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 Minnesota cases.  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.

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!


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 driving a vehicular 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 drivers 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 drivers 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.  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.  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.

Minnesota Criminal Defense 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.  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.  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.  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.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson wins forfeiture of motor vehicle case out of the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota  

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won forfeiture of motor vehicle case out of the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had been found to have been in possession of cocaine in his motor vehicle, a Chevrolet Blazer.  Minnesota law allows a person’s vehicle to be forfeited if a felony amount of a controlled substance is found in his vehicle.  Fortunately, Ms. Torgerson won the return of the her client’s motor vehicle, a Chevrolet Blazer.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson obtains release of client from Detox Center  

Minnesota Criminal Lawyer 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.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.  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).

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.

CASE LAW UPDATE: 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.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.  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.

Minnesota Criminal Defense 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.  Even 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.

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.  The blood test showed that defendant’s alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit, and the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked her drivers 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.  The trial court upheld the revocation.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that defendant’s drivers 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.

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

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.

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

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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 drivers 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.

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

CASE LAW UPDATE:  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.

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

Minnesota DWI Attorneys & DUI Defense Lawyers 

Our Minneapolis Drunk Driving Lawyer represents clients throughout the State of Minnesota. Lynne Torgerson, Esq. represents clients throughout the entire State of Minnesota.

Contact Lynne Torgerson today at 612-339-5073 to schedule your consultation. Our law firm can help you with our qualified Drunk Driving Lawyer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  We love our clients!

Localities Served

Ms. Torgerson, Esq. practices throughout the State of Minnesota.  She can also represent people in other states if granted pro hace vice admission.  More specifically, the terrorities in which Ms. Torgerson, Esq. practices include:  Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Aitkin County, Albert Lea, Anoka County, Becker County, Beltrami County, Benton County, Big Stone County, Blaine, Bloomington, Blue Earth County, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Brown County, Carlton County, Carver County, Cass County, Chippewa County, Chisago County, Clay County, Clearwater County, Columbia Heights, Cook County, Coon Rapids, Cottonwood County, Crow Wing County, Crystal, Dakota County, Dodge County, Douglas County, Faribault County, Freeborn County, Fridley, Goodhue County, Fillmore County, Grant County, Hennepin County, Hopkins, Houston County, Hubbard County, Isanti County, Itasca County, Jackson County, Kanabec County, Kandiyohi County, Kittson County, Koochiching County, Lac Qui Parle County, Lake County, Lake of the Woods County, LeSueur County, Lincoln County, Lyon County, Mahnomen County, Maple Grove, Marshall County, Martin County, McLeod County, Mille Lacs County, Meeker County, Minneapolis, Morrison County, Mower County, Murray County, Nicollet County, Nobles County, Norman County, Olmsted County, Otter Tail County, Pennington County, Pine County, Pipestone County, Plymouth, Polk County, Pope County, Ramsey County, Red Lake County, Red Wing, Redwood County, Renville County, Rice County, Richfield, Robbinsdale, Rochester, Rock County, Roseau County, St. Louis County, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Savage, Scott County, Sherburne County, Shakopee, Sibley County, Spring Lake Park, Stearns County, Steele County, Stevens County, Stillwater, Swift County, Todd County, Traverse County, Wabasha County, Wadena County, Waseca County, Washington County, Watonwan County, Wilkin County, Winona County, Wright County, Yellow Medicine, and throughout the State of Minnesota. Again however, she practices in all cities, all counties, and all courts.