Minnesota DUI independent test request case
In a new unpublished Minnesota DUI case, the court has ruled that the defendant's requests for an independent test were not good enough and that she didn't make enough of an effort for them to intervene and save her from the DWI charge.
The case is Minnesota v. Talbor, decided by the Court of Appeals of Minnesota on January 6, 2009.
The facts of this case from the Minnesota DUI opinion:
Appellant Muriel Matuzak was arrested for driving while impaired after she failed several field sobriety tests including a preliminary breath test (PBT) that showed an alcohol concentration of .174. When Matuzak saw the PBT results, she asked the arresting officer if she could take a blood test. The officer did not respond to the request. The officer read the implied-consent advisory to Matuzak, and she was transported to the jail. She had access to her cellular telephone during the trip to the jail and used it to send a text message to a friend stating that she would not be at work. Matuzak declined to speak with an attorney and consented to a breath test. Matuzak did not make any further inquiry about a blood test or any other additional alcohol concentration test, and she did not ask to make any telephone calls.
Matuzak was charged with DWI. She moved to suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer test, arguing that she had been prevented from obtaining a second test by the offi-cer's silence in response to her scene of the stop inquiry about a blood test. Af-ter a hearing on the motion, the district court concluded that because there were no "active attempts by law enforcement to prevent or deny a separate test," the In-toxilyzer test results were admissible. Matuzak submitted the case to the district court on stipulated facts as authorized by State v. Lothenbach, 296 N.W.2d 854 (Minn.1980) (superseded by Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01 subd. 4, effective April 1, 2007). The district court found Matuzak guilty of DWI in the second degree. Matuzak was sentenced, but the sentence was stayed pending this appeal.
Minnesota DUI Law Regarding Independent Tests
Minnesota law provides that after a person submits to the state's alcohol-concentration test, the person has a right to have an additional test at the per-son's own expense. Minn.Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 7(b) (2006). "The failure or inabil-ity to obtain an additional test ... does not preclude the admission in evidence of the test taken at the direction of a peace officer unless the additional test was prevented or denied by the peace officer." Id.
The holding in this case:
Matuzak argues that her situation is analogous to Theel's. We disagree. Theel made an active attempt to obtain a second test after he took the Intoxilyzer test, and he was denied the right to call an attorney to assist in arranging the test. In contrast, Matuzak declined to speak with an attorney before the Intoxilzyer test, did not request a second test after the Intoxilyzer test, and did not ask to speak to anyone about a second test. Matuzak failed to make clear her intent to have a second test administered, and law enforcement did nothing to prevent or deny additional testing.
Practical tip for people facing a DUI (my comments, not from the opinion):
When you face a DUI investigation, you need to be very proactive about your rights. You need to insist on an independent test if you want one. You need to insist on talking with a lawyer if you want one. You should always be polite, but don't mumble requests and make sure that your desires are made clear. A wishy-washy request for an attorney or an independent test is just as good as no request at all.
