§
Subdivision 1.Driving while impaired crime; motor vehicle.
It is a crime for any person to drive, operate, or be in physical control of any motor vehicle, as defined in section 169A.03, subdivision 15, within this state or on any boundary water of this state when:
(1) the person is under the influence of alcohol;
(2) the person is under the influence of a controlled substance;
(3) the person is under the influence of an intoxicating substance and the person knows or has reason to know that the substance has the capacity to cause impairment;
(4) the person is under the influence of a combination of any two or more of the elements named in clauses (1) to (3) or (8);
(5) the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the motor vehicle is 0.08 or more;
(6) the vehicle is a commercial motor vehicle and the person's alcohol concentration at the time, or as measured within two hours of the time, of driving, operating, or being in physical control of the commercial motor vehicle is 0.04 or more;
(7) the person's body contains any amount of a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II, or its metabolite, other than cannabis flower, a cannabis product, a lower-potency hemp edible, a hemp-derived consumer product, an artificially derived cannabinoid, or tetrahydrocannabinols; or
(8) the person is under the influence of cannabis flower, a cannabis product, a lower-potency hemp edible, a hemp-derived consumer product, an artificially derived cannabinoid, or tetrahydrocannabinols.
§
Subd. 2.Refusal to submit to chemical test crime.
It is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test:
(1) of the person's breath under section 169A.51 (chemical tests for intoxication), or 169A.52 (test refusal or failure; revocation of license); or
(2) of the person's blood or urine as required by a search warrant under sections 171.177 and 626.04 to 626.18.
§
Subd. 3.Sentence.
A person who violates this section may be sentenced as provided in section 169A.24 (first-degree driving while impaired), 169A.25 (second-degree driving while impaired), 169A.26 (third-degree driving while impaired), or 169A.27 (fourth-degree driving while impaired).
Notes of Decisions
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr., 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 28× “Because a warrantless search of appellant’s breath would have been constitutional as a search incident to a valid arrest, charging appellant with violating Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2014), for refusing to take a breathalyzer in this circumstance does not implicate a…”
State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 36× “The State subsequently charged Netland with one count of second-degree test refusal, a gross misdemeanor, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2008), which makes it "a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test.”
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 43× “08 or more); (4) fourth-degree driving while impaired (DWI), in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(1) (2014) (driving while under the influence of alcohol); (5) fourth- degree DWI, in violation of section 169A.”
State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358 (Minn. 2011).
· cites it 20× “Appellant John Allen Koppi was convicted of second-degree refusal to submit to chemical testing (“test refusal”) under Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2010). Koppi first argues that the district court abused its discretion in giving the jury an erroneous instruction that…”
State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009).
· cites it 24× “20 or more), Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 1(5), 169A.26 (2008), and the complaint against him was later amended to include a charge of fourth-degree driving while impaired (under the influence of alcohol), Minn.”
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan, 870 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 32× “When a warrantless search of a driver’s blood would not have been constitutional under an exception to the warrant requirement, charging the driver with violating Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2012), for refusing to submit to a blood test implicates a fundamental right.”
State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 12× “See Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5) (2012). Police did not attempt to secure a search warrant in connection with the July 31, 2009 incident.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 9× “” The State subsequently charged Thompson with one count of second-degree test refusal, Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 2, 169A.25 (2014); one count of third-degree driving while impaired, Minn.”
State v. Netland, 742 N.W.2d 207 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 42× “FACTS Appellant Jakklyn Netland 1 was charged with one count of third-degree driving while impaired(DWI), a violation of Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(1) (2004), and one count of second-degree DWI for refusal to submit to a chemical test (test refusal), a violation of Minn.”
State v. Mellett, 642 N.W.2d 779 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 19× “Appellant was arrested for and charged with first-degree driving while impaired (Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, . subd. 1(1), 169A.”
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan, 886 N.W.2d 216 (Minn. 2016).
· cites it 12× “The question we are asked to decide in this case is whether Minnesota’s test refusal statute, Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2014), is constitutional as applied to respondent Todd Eugene Trahan.”
State v. Losh, 755 N.W.2d 736 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 24× “Following the revocation, Losh pleaded guilty and was convicted of driving while impaired, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 (2000). [1] Before trial, Losh moved to dismiss the driving after revocation charge on the ground that it was a civil/regulatory offense under…”
— Minn. Stat. § 169A.20(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.