DWI laws in Minnesota could change with a Supreme Court ruling

Minnesota Supreme Court is set to release an opinion on what could be a landmark decision that could greatly impact DWI cases. It centers on an observation period law enforcement officers carry out before issuing a breathalyzer. Fox 9's Karen Scullin joining us now after speaking with a DWI attorney ahead of tomorrow's decision, Karen. There are up to 25,000 DWI arrests in Minnesota each year, so the decision on this case could have an enormous impact. There's no question drinking and driving is a public safety issue. And it's a scientific fact that burping, belching or regurgitating stomach contents can impact a breathalyzer test. The alcohol in the stomach is about 2,000 times stronger in concentration. So it takes just a little bit to erupt. To completely, I'll say erroneously, report a much higher result than it should be. And that's the danger. It's called mouth alcohol contamination. That's why before issuing a breathalyzer test, state training says the officer must carry out a 15-minute observation period ahead of the test. But current law says the training on how to do that doesn't have to be followed for the breathalyzer results to be admissible. It's this part that the Supreme Court is considering. Considering I know. That it got bad enough where officers, so many officers were failing to follow their training. And the government was losing so many cases that the Attorney General, rather than requiring officers The training requires that the officer remain to follow their training, in close spatial proximity to the driver and that they must use sensory skills, decided to appeal. sight, hearing or smell to ensure the driver does not regurgitate stomach contents. And they have to watch for them putting anything in their mouth or watching visible signs of an eruption or a burp. So, you know, you can tell when someone burped there, they might try to suppress the belch, right? You may not always hear it, I know when I'm in church, I don't let one rip, right? We have social norms and mores, but you might see shoulders jerk like that. It doesn't have to be a stare down, it can be observing them through their peripheral vision. But what happens, for example, if the officer gets up and walks out of the room? Does that interrupt the observation period? I believe it's hard to observe someone with their eyes when they've got a steel wall in However, the state argued that the observation period should carry weight but not impact admissibility of the breathalyzer results. And noted the manual says sight, hearing, or smell. Ramsey says that's essentially a typo, that it doesn't say and. Because if you take that literally, it doesn't require them to see, it doesn't require I want to require them to hear. It only requires them to smell, which means that Helen Keller could conduct an observation period under that standard. And I think that's absurd. Now this case could greatly impact future cases and possibly some cases already settled. That opinion is due to come down at 10 a.m. tomorrow. Karen Scullin, Fox 9. All right, Karen, thank you.