§
Subdivision 1.Alcohol concentration evidence.
Upon the trial of any prosecution arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person arrested for violating section 169A.20 (driving while impaired) or 169A.31 (alcohol-related school bus or Head Start bus driving), the court may admit evidence of the presence or amount of alcohol in the person's blood, breath, or urine as shown by an analysis of those items. In addition, in a prosecution for a violation of section 169A.20, the court may admit evidence of the presence or amount in the person's blood, breath, or urine, as shown by an analysis of those items, of:
(1) a controlled substance or its metabolite; or
(2) an intoxicating substance.
§
Subd. 2.Relevant evidence of impairment.
For the purposes of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired), evidence that there was at the time an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or more is relevant evidence in indicating whether or not the person was under the influence of alcohol.
§
Subd. 3.Evidence of refusal.
Evidence of the refusal to take a test is admissible into evidence in a prosecution under section 169A.20 (driving while impaired).
§
Subd. 4.Other competent evidence admissible.
The preceding provisions do not limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing upon the question of whether the person violated section 169A.20 (driving while impaired) or 169A.31 (alcohol-related school bus or Head Start bus driving), including tests obtained more than two hours after the alleged violation and results obtained from partial tests on an infrared or other approved breath-testing instrument. A result from a partial test is the measurement obtained by analyzing one adequate breath sample, as described in section 169A.51, subdivision 5, paragraph (b) (breath test using infrared or other approved breath-testing instrument).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 2003–2019 · leading case:
State v. Larivee, 656 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2003).
State v. Larivee, 656 N.W.2d 226 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 3 (2002). [2] In addition, if a driver refuses either a blood, breath, or urine test after the preliminary screening test, he or she faces two potential sanctions: (1) the state revokes his or her driver's license for a year under the state's civil…”
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Although alcohol concentration testing of a blood sample obtained more than 2 hours after driving may still be admissible to prove impairment, see Minn. Stat. § 169A.45, (Footnoted continued on next page.”
State v. Wood, 922 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “Minn. Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 1 (2014) (emphasis added).”
State v. Flermoen, 785 N.W.2d 787 (Minn. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 8× “” Minn.Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 1 (2006). In addition, the Minnesota Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility of evidence in a criminal DWI proceeding.”
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson, 873 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 1 (2010) (stating that the results of a blood, breath, or urine test may be admitted in a prosecution for driving while impaired).”
State v. Banken, 690 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 8× “Use of samples taken more than two hours after driving is addressed by Minn. Stat. § 169A.45 (2002), which deals with evidence in driving while impaired offenses.”
State v. Netland, 742 N.W.2d 207 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 4 (2006). The district court has the discretion to determine whether partial-test evidence is competent.”
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “08 at the time of driving); see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 4 (2010) (describing tests taken more than two hours after the alleged violation as “competent evidence”).”
State of Minnesota v. Grant Jason Bresnahan (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 169A.45, subd. 3 (2014) (“Evidence of the refusal to take a test is 10 admissible into evidence in a prosecution under section 169A.”
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.