SF 610

1st Engrossment - 89th Legislature (2015 - 2016) Posted on 03/26/2015 08:25am

A bill for an act
relating to public safety; providing a necessity defense in implied consent
proceedings; amending Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 169A.53, subdivision 3.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

Section 1.

Minnesota Statutes 2014, section 169A.53, subdivision 3, is amended to read:

Subd. 3.

Judicial hearing; issues, order, appeal.

(a) A judicial review hearing
under this section must be before a district judge in any county in the judicial district
where the alleged offense occurred. The hearing is to the court and may be conducted at
the same time and in the same manner as hearings upon pretrial motions in the criminal
prosecution under section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), if any. The hearing must be
recorded. The commissioner shall appear and be represented by the attorney general or
through the prosecuting authority for the jurisdiction involved. The hearing must be held
at the earliest practicable date, and in any event no later than 60 days following the filing
of the petition for review. The judicial district administrator shall establish procedures to
ensure efficient compliance with this subdivision. To accomplish this, the administrator
may, whenever possible, consolidate and transfer review hearings among the locations
within the judicial district where terms of district court are held.

(b) The scope of the hearing is limited to the issues in clauses (1) to deleted text begin (10) deleted text end new text begin (11) new text end :

(1) Did the peace officer have probable cause to believe the person was driving,
operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle or commercial motor vehicle in
violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired)?

(2) Was the person lawfully placed under arrest for violation of section 169A.20?

(3) Was the person involved in a motor vehicle accident or collision resulting in
property damage, personal injury, or death?

(4) Did the person refuse to take a screening test provided for by section 169A.41
(preliminary screening test)?

(5) If the screening test was administered, did the test indicate an alcohol
concentration of 0.08 or more?

(6) At the time of the request for the test, did the peace officer inform the person
of the person's rights and the consequences of taking or refusing the test as required by
section 169A.51, subdivision 2?

(7) Did the person refuse to permit the test?

(8) If a test was taken by a person driving, operating, or in physical control of a
motor vehicle, did the test results indicate at the time of testing:

(i) an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more; or

(ii) the presence of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II or its metabolite,
other than marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinols?

(9) If a test was taken by a person driving, operating, or in physical control of a
commercial motor vehicle, did the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or
more at the time of testing?

(10) Was the testing method used valid and reliable and were the test results
accurately evaluated?

new text begin (11) Did the person prove the defense of necessity?
new text end

(c) It is an affirmative defense for the petitioner to prove that, at the time of the
refusal, the petitioner's refusal to permit the test was based upon reasonable grounds.

(d) Certified or otherwise authenticated copies of laboratory or medical personnel
reports, records, documents, licenses, and certificates are admissible as substantive
evidence.

(e) The court shall order that the revocation or disqualification be either rescinded or
sustained and forward the order to the commissioner. The court shall file its order within 14
days following the hearing. If the revocation or disqualification is sustained, the court shall
also forward the person's driver's license or permit to the commissioner for further action by
the commissioner if the license or permit is not already in the commissioner's possession.

(f) Any party aggrieved by the decision of the reviewing court may appeal the
decision as provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

(g) The civil hearing under this section shall not give rise to an estoppel on any
issues arising from the same set of circumstances in any criminal prosecution.

new text begin (h) It is an affirmative defense for the petitioner to prove a necessity.
new text end