STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF

DISTRICT COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

State of Minnesota,

                                                 Plaintiff,

Vs.

DWI Defendant,

                                                 Defendant

Court File No.:

DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS PURSUANT TO MINN. R.CRIM. P., RULES 7, 8, 9, 10,11 AND 17, AND MINN. STAT.§ 169.14, SUBDS. 9 AND 10

1.      Dismissing the Complaint and/or charges on the grounds that there does not exist probable cause to believe the defendant committed the offense(s) charged therein.

2.      Requiring the prosecution to make disclosures pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P., Rules 7 and 9; Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).

3.      Suppressing any and all evidence against the defendant obtained as a result of a search, search and seizure, wiretapping, or any form of electronic or mechanical eavesdropping, together with any evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional and statutory protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and unlawful invasion of privacy.

4.      Suppressing any and all evidence obtained as a result of confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by the defendant, together with any evidence discovered as a result of confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by the defendant on the grounds that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights.

5.       Suppressing any and all evidence obtained as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation, together with any evidence obtained as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation, on the grounds that any use of such evidence, in any manner, would be in violation of the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights.

6.      Restraining the prosecution from attempting to offer into evidence at trial any evidence that the defendant has been guilty of additional misconduct or crimes on other occasions on the grounds that such evidence is not admissible under any of the exceptions to the general rule of exclusion, the prosecution's notice required by decisional law of this State and Rule 9 are not sufficiently specific and/or do not specify the exception, and the evidence is more prejudicial than probative and is remote and, therefore, the defendant cannot receive a fair trial.

7.      Restraining the prosecution from attempting to offer into evidence at trial any evidence obtained as a result of a search, search and seizure, wiretapping or any form of electronic or mechanical eavesdropping, confessions, admissions, or statements in the nature of confessions made by the Defendant, or as a result of identification procedures used during the investigation on the grounds that the notices filed by the prosecuting attorney are vague, ambiguous, and not specific, all to the prejudice of the defendant and contrary to the meaning of Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.01 and on the grounds of failure to produce requested documentation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subds. 9 and 10.

8.      Restraining the prosecution during trial from making any reference to, or attempting to offer evidence of, prior convictions of the defendant.  This includes, but is not limited to, any reference to prior alcohol-related traffic offenses, any driver's license revocations, cancellations, or denials, and the defendant's driver's license status at the time of the offense alleged in this matter.

9.      Dismissing relevant counts of the Complaint on the grounds there is no showing that the prior conviction or revocation was properly obtained as required by State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901 (Minn. 1983); State v. Henson, 360 N.W.2d 460 (Minn. App. 1985); State v. Stewart, 360 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. App. 1985); State v. Dumas, C0-98-1152, filed December 15, 1998, Court of Appeals; other applicable cases; and Minn. R. Crim. P., Rules 5.01 and 15.01-15.03.

10.  Directing the prosecution to identify and produce any informants who supplied or contributed information to the prosecution that led to the issuance of a Complaint against the defendant on the grounds that:

a.       The privilege of nondisclosure of informants must give way, and the identity of an informer must be disclosed where disclosure is essential or relevant, material, and helpful to the defense of an accused, lessens the risk of false testimony, is necessary to secure useful testimony, or is necessary to a fair determination of the case.

b.      Disclosure is necessary in many instances, and particularly in this case, as a means available to afford this defendant an opportunity to establish that if informants did exist, the information supplied to the prosecutor by them was inaccurate or misrepresentative.

11.  Ordering a probable cause hearing with live-body testimony pursuant to State v. Florence, 239 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1976).

12.  Ordering any and all additional relief as the Court deems necessary to promote a fair and speedy trial.

13.  Dismissing the case and/or suppressing the results of the chemical testing request (test or refusal) because of a violation of the right to counsel found in the United States Constitution and in Minn. Const. Art. I § 6, and because of erroneous advice, all as more fully explained in Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991) and McDonnell, Moser and Weeding v. Commissioner of Public Safety, and State v. Driver, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991), and because the advice omitted the right to consult with an attorney after testing.  This includes, but is not limited to, denial of the rights to:  a public defender, a private consultation, a consultation without interference, a reasonable opportunity to reach an attorney, and sufficient time for the consultation itself.

14.  Dismissing the Complaint and/or suppressing all reference at trial by the State to any chemical testing because the defendant was prevented from obtaining or denied a separate chemical test, and, thus, was denied the opportunity to obtain proof of innocence at the only meaningful time available, in violation of the defendant's due process right to prepare a defense under the State and Federal Constitutions and Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 3.

15.  Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §634.15, Subd.2, requiring the State to produce at trial the person who performed the laboratory analysis or examination of the Defendant’s blood or urine sample, as well as the person who drew the blood or urine sample.