State v. Jorgensen

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

State v. Jorgensen

365 N.W.2d 314, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3991

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedApril 2, 1985

DocketNo. C6-84-1632

StatusPublished

This text of 365 N.W.2d 314 (State v. Jorgensen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jorgensen, 365 N.W.2d 314, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3991 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

FACTS

On February 20, 1983, Kenneth Lee Jor-gensen, a.k.a. Kenneth Lee Johnson, was arrested in Fairmont, Minnesota, and charged with speeding and D.W.I. A police officer read him the implied consent advisory, including the statutory language that his driving privileges may be revoked for 90 days or more if a chemical test showed him to be under the influence. See Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(b)(3) (1984). Appellant consented to a breath test, which showed a blood alcohol concentration of .19, resulting in revocation of his license.

Before appellant’s criminal trial for D.W.I. the trial court denied his motion to suppress the test results. We denied discretionary review. After stipulating to certain facts, appellant was subsequently convicted of D.W.I. under Minn.Stat. § 169.-121, subd. 1(d) (1984).

DECISION

Appellant contends on appeal that he was denied due process because the implied consent advisory read to him was misleading; it indicated his license “may” be revoked instead of “shall” be revoked. Compare Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(b)(3) with id. § 169.123, subd. 4. This contention was rejected in State v. Frank, 365 N.W.2d 313 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), a companion case filed today.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY OPINION

LANSING, Judge.

FACTS

On February 20, 1983, Kenneth Lee Jor-gensen, a.k.a. Kenneth Lee Johnson, was arrested in Fairmont, Minnesota, and charged with speeding and D.W.I. A police officer read him the implied consent advisory, including the statutory language that his driving privileges may be revoked for 90 days or more if a chemical test showed him to be under the influence. See Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(b)(3) (1984). Appellant consented to a breath test, which showed a blood alcohol concentration of .19, resulting in revocation of his license.

Before appellant’s criminal trial for D.W.I. the trial court denied his motion to suppress the test results. We denied discretionary review. After stipulating to certain facts, appellant was subsequently convicted of D.W.I. under Minn.Stat. § 169.-121, subd. 1(d) (1984).

DECISION

Appellant contends on appeal that he was denied due process because the implied consent advisory read to him was misleading; it indicated his license “may” be revoked instead of “shall” be revoked. Compare Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(b)(3) with id. § 169.123, subd. 4. This contention was rejected in State v. Frank, 365 N.W.2d 313 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), a companion case filed today.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 N.W.2d 314, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jorgensen-minnctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack