I have been following this bill closely as it made its way through the Minnesota legislature as it would have substantially changed the advice I give to my clients who own and carry firearms. As I previously posted, the bill would have done away with the common law duty of reasonable retreat when self-defense is exacted outside of the home. With Governor Dayton’s veto, the law will remain as only authorizing the use of deadly force when necessary to resist a crime when there is an objective, good faith belief in the threat of great bodily harm or death, or to prevent the commission of a felony in your own home.

Coley Grostyan is a Minneapolis, MN criminal defense attorney who represents individuals accused of gun crimes in the Twin Cities and surrounding suburbs, and throughout the State of Minnesota.

_____________________________________________

I previously wrote about the castle doctrine bill and how it would change Minnesotans’ ability to use deadly force to defend themselves here.

_____________________________________________

Although not contained in Minnesota statues, common law imposes a duty to retreat when reasonable. However, neither Minnesota statutes nor common law impose any such duty when reasonably defending yourself or your home during a home invasion. The thought is that reasonable retreat in self-defense outside the home applies because there may be a safer place, your home. By contrast, self-defense in and of the home is paramount to the protection of family. The only Minnesota cases where there was duty to retreat applied to self-defense in the home involved circumstances where the deadly force was objectively unreasonable.

The Minnesota Defense of Dwelling and Person Act would eliminate the duty to retreat outside the home and would authorize the good faith use of force against an assailant until the danger ends. In addition, this bill expands the definition of a dwelling to include any permanent or temporary overnight accommodations (e.g. vehicle, boat, hotel, etc.), as well as the area immediately surrounding the home.

The bill is expected to pass with bi-partisan support.

Coley Grostyan is a Minneapolis, MN criminal defense attorney who represents individuals accused of crimes in the Twin Cities and surrounding suburbs, and throughout the State of Minnesota.

_____________________________________________

Tanksley’s argument was based on what has been known to DWI defense attorneys for quite some time; a first-void urine sample is a snapshot in time of a person’s alcohol concentration and does not accurately reflect blood alcohol concentration. Unlike Minnesota, most other states require the bladder be emptied before the urine is sampled to test for the presence of alcohol. The reason for this procedure is that that alcohol in the urine does not dissipate as quickly as alcohol is metabolized in the bloodstream. Therefore, a first-void urine sample can reflect a higher alcohol concentration than what is present in the blood that would affect the motor skills of a driver.

At the outset, the Court’s decision seems to contradict the requirement that the State must prove a defendant’s alcohol concentration was 0.08 or more at the time, or within 2 hours of the time, the defendant operated or physically controlled a motor vehicle to obtain a conviction for a DWI. However, the MN DWI law defines “alcohol concentration” as “(1) the number of grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood; (2) the number of grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath; or (3) the number of grams of alcohol per 67 milliliters of urine.” Therefore, under a strict reading of MN DWI statutes, it does not matter whether alcohol in the urine correlates to the blood alcohol concentration because the legislature has said that alcohol concentration in the urine is sufficient to convict someone for a DWI.

Coley Grostyan is a Minneapolis based DWI defense attorney who represents individuals charged with driving while impaired (DWI), and all other impaired driving related charges in the Twin Cities and surrounding suburbs, and throughout the State of Minnesota.

_____________________________________________

Another bill submitted would increase penalties for individuals who attack or kill state and federal prosecutors. Current Minnesota already has increased penalties for assaulting or killing law enforcement and correctional officers.

Both bills are expected to have sufficient support to pass into law.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/958809/14/Prosecutor-shot-at-MN-courthouse-supports-guns-bill
_____________________________________________