You might say that there is never a time to drive drunk, but the fact of the matter is that’s simply not true. While it’s not ideal, there certainly are situations where you may come to the realization that your only option is to get behind the wheel despite the fact that you’ve had too much to drink.
Let’s say, for example, that Anna and Bob are married and have been drinking. One thing leads to another and the pair get in a fight, and Bob physically assaults Anna. Fearing for her physical safety, Anna grabs her car keys and drives a mile to her friend’s house, only to be pulled over along the way. It’s possible that she may be able to avoid a DWI conviction by arguing that she needed to drive away from Bob. This is known as the necessity defense, and we take a closer look at the elements of the necessity defense in today’s blog.
The Necessity Defense For DUI
Although the state outlines some of the elements that need to exist for a successful necessity defense in a DWI case, it’s important to note that every case will be scrutinized on an individual level. Specific circumstances need to exist in order for the necessity defense to have a foundation. You can’t put yourself in a bad situation and then drive drunk because it’s convenient and claim the necessity defense. For example, if a husband gets drunk and his wife goes into labor, he can’t just drive her to the hospital with immunity. He could ask a friend or neighbor to drive, he could call an Uber or even call an ambulance, as these are all viable options over driving drunk.
So what specific elements need to be present in order for a necessity defense to have legs? According to Minnesota law, a successful necessity defense must prove:
- The defendant had no legal alternative to breaking the law
- The harm being prevented was imminent
- A direct, causal connection existed between breaking the law and preventing harm
Let’s break that down a bit and look to a previous case where the defense pushed for the necessity defense. For that we turn to State v. Ahta. We’ll try to summarize the case as best we can, but you can get a full look by following the above link.
In that case, the defendant, Ahta, drove one block to a gas station to call 911 after an altercation occurred between her cousin, some of her cousin’s friends and her husband. Ahta returned to the residence where the altercation occurred, and the situation escalated, so Ahta and her family got in the car and she drove back to the gas station. On her drive back, she hit a curb while performing a U-turn, and this action was witnessed by police. She was later found to have a BAC of 0.11 and was charged with DWI.
Ahta and her legal team argued that the necessity defense should apply to her situation, but the court held that she did not establish enough evidence that her situaiton rose to the level where the necessity defense applied. Among other things, the court (and Ahta’s own testimony) noted that instead of driving multiple times to the gas station, she could have:
- Gone to sleep instead of getting in an argument with her cousin and friends.
- Walked or ran to the gas station in about the same amount of time as driving there.
- Waited at the gas station for police instead of driving back and forth multiple times.
In other words, the court felt that Ahta did not establish that a valid emergency situation where driving was the only reasonable option had been established, and her conviction was affirmed on appeal.
So while these cases will always be viewed on a case-by-case basis, if there is an immediate threat to your safety and there is no reasonable alternative to breaking the law and driving drunk, it’s possible that you may be able to avoid a DWI using the necessity defense, but don’t count on it. Do your best to avoid these types of situations if at all possible, and consider any and all reasonable alternatives before hopping in your vehicle under the influence.
For assistance fighting a DWI charge or similar criminal matter, reach out to the team at Appelman Law Firm today at (952) 224-2277.
