Robert Edward Dornbusch v. Commissioner of Public Safety
2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 11
Minn. Ct. App.2015Background
- In July 2012 Dornbusch was stopped for suspected impaired driving; field sobriety tests showed impairment and a blood test detected amphetamine (a Schedule II substance).
- The Commissioner of Public Safety revoked Dornbusch’s driver’s license for 90 days under Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 4(a) because the test indicated a Schedule II controlled substance.
- Dornbusch sought judicial review in district court, arguing the positive test resulted from lawful, physician-prescribed use and invoking the statutory prescription-drug affirmative defense.
- The district court declined to consider the prescription-drug defense, holding it does not apply in administrative implied-consent revocation proceedings, and affirmed the revocation.
- Dornbusch appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals challenging the district court’s legal ruling; the appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court reviewing an implied-consent license revocation may rescind the revocation because the detected Schedule II drug was lawfully prescribed | Dornbusch: the statutory prescription-drug affirmative defense should apply in judicial review, so revocation must be rescinded if the drug was lawfully prescribed | Commissioner: the prescription-drug defense applies in criminal proceedings only and is not among the limited issues a district court may decide in an administrative review under § 169A.53, subd. 3(b) | Held: No. The prescription-drug defense is not a permissible issue in judicial review of revocation; court may not rescind on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rohan, 834 N.W.2d 223 (Minn. App. 2013) (standard of review for statutory interpretation and context for implied-consent issues)
- Axelberg v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 848 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 2014) (list of issues for judicial review is exclusive; defendants may not raise unlisted defenses such as necessity)
- Martinco v. Hastings, 122 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. 1963) (courts cannot supply omitted statutory provisions)
- State v. Retzlaff, 807 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. App. 2011) (rare exception to plain-language rule when literal reading produces absurd result)
- Mut. Serv. Cas. Ins. Co. v. League of Minn. Cities Ins. Trust, 659 N.W.2d 755 (Minn. 2003) (clarifies narrow circumstances permitting disregard of plain statutory language)