Minnesota DWI Forms from Minneapolis DWI Attorney Avery Appelman

Whenever a person receives a Minnesota DWI Arrest and hires Minnesota Drunk Driving Lawyers Appelman and Olsen, P.C. to defend them, these DWI Attorneys review the Minnesota DWI Law and facts and determine whether to file any of the below MN DWI Motions:  




COUNTY OF «CountyOfOffense»




«JudicialDistrict» JUDICIAL DISTRICT


«ClientFirstName» «ClientMiddleName» «ClientLastName»,





Commissioner of Public Safety,
















PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named Petitioner, by and through the undersigned attorney, requests a hearing and petitions the Court, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.53, subd. 2 & 3, and 169A.60, subd. 10 for rescission of the Order of Revocation of Respondent's license to drive, and Order of License Plate Impoundment by Respondent issued on or about «DateOfOffense», arising out of the following incident:



Full Name of Petitioner:

«ClientFirstName» «ClientMiddleName» «ClientLastName»


Driver's License No.



State of Issue:  



Date of Birth:   



Date of Offense:




City of «CityOfOffense», County of «CountyOfOffense»


1)      The peace officer who arrested Petitioner did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe Petitioner violated Minn. Stat. § 169A.20.


2)      Petitioner was not lawfully placed under arrest for violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 including, but not limited to, insufficient cause for either the initial stop or intrusion, for the use of any preliminary screening device, or for the arrest of Petitioner.


3)      Petitioner did not drive, operate, or physically control a motor vehicle at the relevant time.


4)      The peace officer did not properly inform Petitioner of his rights or consequences for taking or refusing a chemical test.


5)      The chemical testing method was invalid and/or unreliable.


6)      The chemical test results were inaccurately evaluated.


7)      Petitioner did not refuse testing and/or had a reasonable basis under the circumstances for refusing to submit to testing.


8)      Petitioner was unable to complete the test or tests requested.


9)      Petitioner's right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain a chemical test or tests of his own choosing was prevented or denied by a peace officer. 


10)  The officer did not fully vindicate Petitioner's right to consult with an attorney under Minnesota Constitution Article I § 6 and Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, Subd 3.


11)  The officer unlawfully coerced the result of the test request by his actions and advice, violating due process of law.  This includes, but is not limited to, the principles found in McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (the Moser portion), 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991).


12)  The officer read an advisory which did not comport with the information mandated by Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, Subd. 2.


13)  Petitioner was not properly notified of the revocation, disqualification, or determination to deny.  There was no notice served on the Petitioner that notified Petitioner of the reason for or the length of the revocation


14)  The revocation was not based on a test result which was properly certified to the Commissioner.


15)  The Petitioner, after the time of any alleged actual driving, operating, or being in physical control of a motor vehicle, consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol to cause his blood alcohol concentration to exceed .08.


16)  The Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory as it is currently worded is unconstitutional because, among other reasons, it fails to advise the Petitioner of the criminal and civil consequences of testing over .20, thereby preventing the Petitioner from making a voluntary and intelligent decision regarding testing.


17)  Petitioner/alleged violator is not the registered owner of the vehicle and /or does not own it, possess it, or have access to it.


18)  A member of Petitioner's/alleged violator's household has a valid driver's license.


19)  Petitioner/alleged violator is not the registered owner and the registered owner does have a valid or limited driver's license, or a member of the registered owner's household has a valid driver's license.


20)  The peace officer did not have probable cause to believe that the Petitioner/alleged violator committed the requisite violation.


21)  The evidence does not demonstrate that the violation occurred.


22)  Other:



Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition prior to the hearing or during the hearing to raise additional grounds and/or allege additional facts not known at the time of filing because the Implied Consent law limits discovery and/or because Respondent has not provided information as required by Minnesota statute.




             Petitioner also seeks rescission of the revocation, or such other relief as the Court deems appropriate, on the following grounds:


The implied consent procedure violates State and Federal constitutional provisions for due process of law, equal protection of the laws, the right to redress grievances, separation of powers, double jeopardy, the State constitutional right to consult with an attorney, the Court's inherent power to supervise the court process, and the rules of professional conduct for attorneys and for judges, in that:


  • The 1998 changes in the implied consent and DWI laws, including, but not limited to, the use of revocations for enhancement of future criminal charges, the removal of civil discovery, and the removal of the obligation of the government to produce test analysts (even if demanded), have inextricably intertwined an already quasi-criminal arena with a criminal one, so that the government should be required to bring suit to revoke a license, not the other way around;


  • Because of those same changes in the law, both constitutions require that the trial of the revocation issue must include enhanced due process safeguards of a jury trial of twelve, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to be free from compelled self-incrimination (See generally Heddan v. Dirkswager), the right to confront the State's witnesses, the right to free counsel if indigent, the right to be presumed innocent (see Hepfal v. Bashaw, 279 N.W.2d 342 (Minn. 1979); Davis, et al., v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 509 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. App. 1994), affirmed 517 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 1995)).  These violations are even more egregious in view of the fact that at the same time the legislature has criminalized the implied consent revocation, it has reduced the due process safeguards afforded drivers who dispute the revocation, contrary to the warnings in Davis, et al., v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 509 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. App. 1994), affirmed 517 N.W.2d 532 (Minn. 1995).


  • For the same reasons, the reading of the Implied Consent Advisory, all discussion of implied consent rights, and any purported waivers thereof, must now be electronically recorded under State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1994);


  • For the same reasons, the new law changes have rendered the State constitutional right to counsel meaningless and impossible to effectuate as the new provisions create an irreconcilable conflict or dilemma between the attorney and his/her client during calls prior to testing; as well, the lack of a right to free counsel for indigent drivers denies them representation at what is now a critical stage of a criminal proceeding, and denying free counsel to indigents while the time for petitioning is running, or at the hearing, denies them any meaningful opportunity to review license loss, plate loss, or vehicle forfeiture because the public defenders generally are forbidden to bring or defend these civil actions and/or will not be paid for same, at a time when the legislature has increased the consequences of license revocation and decreased the procedural safeguards; and


  • In an appropriate case, the revocation must be rescinded because it is now based on the test results only at the time of testing, when the driver may in fact have consumed sufficient alcohol after driving or physically controlling a motor vehicle to raise his or her alcohol concentration above the legal limit, and both State and Federal constitutions provide for fair and rational laws.


Petitioner seeks reimbursement of any and all costs, expenses, filing and attorney's fees, and any and all reinstatement fees, application fees, and other expenditures that may have been incurred in securing pursuing this Petition and/or in securing a limited license pending the hearing in this matter. 



             Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, Subd. 2 (d)(4), Petitioner hereby states that Petitioner may call the following witnesses:


  • The Petitioner herein;


  • Any law enforcement officer and/or jail deputy that had anything whatsoever to do with Petitioner's stop, arrest, detainment, chemical test (or lack thereof), and/or questioning or other testing of Petitioner, including any officer, deputy, or any other person bearing witness or having any knowledge whatsoever as to any such events.  Petitioner does not know the identity of these individuals at present and refers Respondent to the officer(s) that requested the test and/or served the Notice of Revocation; and


  • Expert witness Thomas Burr or Ann Manley to rebut the accuracy and reliability of the chemical test.




             Petitioner hereby demands all discovery itemized in Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, Subd. 2(d) together with copies of narrative reports, booking sheets, and all other documents and audio and/or videotapes and photographs in any way associated with the revocation, plate impoundment, and/or forfeiture referenced herein.


             Petitioner further demands the identity of any law enforcement officer and/or jail deputy that had anything whatsoever to do with Petitioner's stop, arrest, detainment, chemical test (or lack thereof), and/or questioning or other testing of Petitioner, including any officer, deputy, or any other person bearing witness or having any knowledge whatsoever as to any such events.


             Petitioner demands the in-court presence and testimony of the person who obtained any sample of Petitioner's blood or urine for chemical testing, the person who analyzed the same, and the person who attested to the results in the report and/or prepared the report, at no expense to Petitioner. 




             Petitioner hereby demands a judge to preside over all issues submitted herein.



MINN. STAT. § 549.211


             The undersigned hereby acknowledges that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211, costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties in this litigation if the Court should find the undersigned acted in bad faith, asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous and that is costly to the other party, asserted an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of these proceedings, or harassed or committed a fraud upon the Court.






Respectfully submitted,









«AttorneyFirstName» «AttorneyMiddleInitial» «AttorneyLastName»                           

Attorney No. «AttorneyID»

Attorney for Petitioner

212 Butler North Building

510 First Avenue North

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403

Phone: (612) 332-9121


The DUI attorneys and DWI lawyers listed on this site include nationally published authors on DUI laws and DWI laws. These Drunk Driving Defense Attorneys have appeared in over 75 local television stations and 229 newspapers nationwide.

Free Case Review


Understanding DUI Scientific Evidence
This product provides an insider's perspective on the evolving technologies and procedures associated with the evidence associated with driving under the influence (DUI) charges. Leading defense attorneys guide the reader through the key stages and steps involved in successfully defending a client accused of driving while under the influence.

Ask A Question: Click Here