As a criminal defense attorney, I often receive questions about how our legal system works and what happens when cases are appealed. Recently, a notable decision from our Court of Appeals sheds light on a critical issue: “physical control” in DWI cases. Here’s a breakdown of the case and what it means for defendants in Minnesota.
Minnesota’s Court System: A Quick Overview
Before diving into the case, it’s helpful to understand the structure of Minnesota’s court system, which operates at three key levels:
- District Court: This is where the trial happens. When someone is charged with a crime, their case begins here. Motions, pretrial hearings, and trials are conducted at this level. If either the defense or the state is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can appeal the decision.
- Court of Appeals: This is the next level up. The Court of Appeals is responsible for correcting any errors made at the district court level. Cases that are appealed are reviewed by a panel of three judges who determine whether the trial court’s ruling was correct.
- Supreme Court: The highest level of the court system, the Minnesota Supreme Court has the power to make and interpret law. While not every case reaches this level, it is the final arbiter of legal disputes in our state.
Now, let’s talk about a recent DWI case that illustrates the complexities of these court levels in action.
The Case of Mr. Nelson: DWI and “Physical Control”
In this case, Mr. Nelson, the defendant, was found passed out in his vehicle in a Walmart parking lot. Police officers discovered several compressed air cans, a common inhalant, in his car, suggesting intoxication. However, when officers approached the vehicle, the car wasn’t running, and there were no keys inside or on Mr. Nelson’s person. After waking him up, officers asked him how they could lock up the vehicle, and Mr. Nelson walked over to one of the car’s wheels, where he had hidden the keys.
The state charged Mr. Nelson with a felony DWI, arguing that he was in “physical control” of the vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicating substance. However, Mr. Nelson’s defense team argued that since the car wasn’t running and the keys were hidden outside the vehicle, there was no probable cause to proceed with the case.
District Court: Victory for the Defense
The district court sided with Mr. Nelson, agreeing with his lawyers that the state did not have sufficient probable cause to prove “physical control.” The case was dismissed, and it seemed like a victory for the defense.
Court of Appeals: Reversing the Decision
Unhappy with the district court’s decision, the state appealed. The case went to the Court of Appeals, where a panel of three judges reviewed the arguments. In August 2024, the appellate court issued its ruling: the district court got it wrong.
The appellate judges decided that Mr. Nelson’s knowledge of the location of the keys—despite being hidden outside the car—was enough to establish “physical control” under law. They reasoned that if a defendant knows where the keys are and has access to them, they could potentially operate the vehicle at any moment. Thus, a jury could reasonably decide that Mr. Nelson was in “physical control” of the car while intoxicated, which warranted a trial.
What Happens Next?
With the appellate court’s decision, Mr. Nelson’s case will now go back to the district court for further proceedings. Whether the case proceeds to trial or is resolved through plea negotiations remains to be seen, but the important takeaway is that “physical control” can be interpreted broadly in DWI cases.
Key Legal Insight: What Does This Mean for You?
This case highlights a crucial point for anyone facing DWI charges: the concept of “physical control” goes beyond simply sitting behind the wheel of a running car. Even if the car isn’t running and the keys are not inside the vehicle, as long as you know where the keys are and have access to them, you could still be charged with DWI.