David Anthony Janssen v. Commissioner of Public Safety
2016 Minn. App. LEXIS 63
Minn. Ct. App.2016Background
- David Janssen was arrested for DWI; preliminary breath test showed .196 and two evidentiary breath samples showed .174 and .167.
- Because his breath result exceeded .16, the Commissioner revoked his driver’s license for one year and ordered license-plate impoundment under Minn. Stat. provisions for twice-the-limit results.
- Janssen petitioned for judicial review and limited his challenge at the implied-consent hearing to whether his test result showed an alcohol concentration of .16 or more.
- The district court refused to consider challenges to results over .08, concluding Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b)(8)(i) limited implied-consent hearings to the binary question of whether a result was .08 or more, and then sustained the revocation on the Commissioner’s prima facie showing of valid testing.
- Janssen appealed, arguing he was entitled to challenge the accuracy/evaluation of the breath-test results showing .16+ at the implied-consent hearing; he also argued denial of meaningful postrevocation review.
Issues
| Issue | Janssen's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a driver may challenge the accuracy/evaluation of breath-test results exceeding .08 at an implied-consent hearing | Janssen: The implied-consent statute’s clause allowing challenges to whether test results were "accurately evaluated" includes results over .08 (e.g., .16), so he may contest accuracy at the hearing | Commissioner: Clause (8)(i) limits implied-consent hearings to whether results are .08 or more, so accuracy challenges cannot target thresholds above .08 | Court: Reversed — drivers may challenge accuracy/evaluation of test results over .08 at implied-consent hearings; remanded for consideration of Janssen’s challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Axelberg v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014) (limits on adding issues to implied-consent hearing are for the legislature)
- Dornbusch v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 860 N.W.2d 381 (Minn. App. 2015) (refusal to expand implied-consent hearing issues to include prescription-drug defense)
- State v. Wenthe, 865 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2015) (court may not supply omitted statutory language)
- Fedziuk v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 696 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. 2005) (due process requires prompt, meaningful postrevocation review)
- Doe v. Minn. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 435 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1989) (statutes with same purpose should be construed in pari materia)
- Johnson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 756 N.W.2d 140 (Minn. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)