999 Fifth Avenue, Suite 350, San Rafael, CA 94901

Call Today for Your Free Consultation
Call Us 415-729-7300

San Francisco DUI Lawyer: Recent DUI Court Decisions

Posted on in

State of New Jersey v. Burns, Not Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 1584364 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

Court rejected a licensee's contention that the State must 'prove-up' the admissibility, accuracy, and reliability of the breath test equipment before finding a “refusal” to submit to it. 

The Court noted that a similar contention concerning the qualifications of a breath test operator was previously rejected, citing In the Matter of John Ferris, 177 N.J.Super. 161 (App.Div.1981), certif. denied, 87 N.J. 392, (1981).

Chemical Test Refusals – Foundational Challenges

Editor’s Comment: What if the driver could prove that the test that was requested by the police was in fact inadmissible? For example, what if a driver was asked to blow into an indisputably unapproved device? Would the outcome be different?


State of Minnesota v. Hester--- N.W.2d ----, 2011 WL 1563683 (Minn.)

A person can commit a criminal test refusal in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2010), if he refuses a request to take a chemical test of the person's blood, breath, or urine made by a “peace officer,” as defined in Minn.Stat. § 169A.03, subd. 18 (2010). The Minnesota Supreme Court held that because the Lower Sioux did not comply with Minn.Stat. § 626.91, subd. 2(a)(2), by failing to carry the required liability insurance limits at the time of appellant's arrest, the Lower Sioux police officer did not have the authority to request that appellant take a chemical test.

Back to Top