The following piece was written by David Hoffman, a local high school student who shadowed Avery Appelman for a day in an attempt to learn more about the daily rigors of the world of law.
Last Tuesday I accompanied Mr. Appelman to a pretrial meeting with a client who had been charged with a Third Degree DWI. After doing some research I learned that a Third Degree DWI is considered a Gross Misdemeanor in the state of Minnesota. For a person to be charged with a Third Degree DUI, they have to have operated a vehicle under the influence of a banned substance or over the legal BAC threshold, and one aggravating factor must be present. Four such aggravating factors include:
- A BAC of .16 or greater;
- The presence of a child under the age of 16 years in the car at the time of the offense;
- A prior DWI conviction or previous alcohol-related driver’s license revocation within the last 10 years;
- Refusal to submit to a breath test.
I was under the impression that Mr. Appelman’s client refused to take a breath test, and Avery mentioned that there was a recent case that called this very factor into question (Missouri v. McNeely).
Mr. Appelman then began to talk to his client about the objectives both sides hoped to obtain, and the likelihood that they could achieve these goals. Mr. Appelman noted that an Ignition Interlock Device, Electronic Home Monitoring and the loss of driving privileges were all real possibilities. He also noted that a subsequent DWI charge would carry the possibility of a year in prison.
Possible Penalties
Minnesota’s Ignition Interlock Program is an alternative to being sentenced to a minimum of 90 days in a district jail. This program allows individuals who have been given DWIs the ability to drive. This system works by forcing drivers to blow into a BAC device before the car starts. If the driver blows under the legal limit, the car will start. If the driver is over the limit, the car will not start, and he’ll be forced to find another mode of transportation.
Another repercussion that could be imposed is Electronic Home Monitoring. This is a way for the state to keep track of a person’s location at all times. Also, the ankle bracelet detects alcohol vapors through a person’s perspiration throughout the day. This allows the state make sure the person adheres to any alcohol-related probation conditions. This device monitors a person’s actions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The defendant had to give up multiple rights in order to avoid a lengthy jail sentence, but sacrificing some privacy is oftentimes the price a person must pay when the make a poor choice. From now until the bracelet and Interlock Device are removed it will be like the client has a “big brother” looking over him.
I enjoyed shadowing Mr. Appelman throughout the day and learned that court isn’t always how it’s portrayed on TV. Sometimes the best option for a client is to make a deal with the prosecution to avoid a longer sentence. It was an interesting experience, and I thank Mr. Appelman for allowing me to accompany him to court. Hopefully I’ll never need a lawyer, but if I do, I know who I’m calling first!
