Firm Overview

IMG_3388If you have been arrested for a DWI or charged with a criminal offense, turn to a lawyer with over 25 years legal experience. As a former president and current member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, I approach each case with the knowledge and resources necessary to give you a sound defense.

In a DWI case, for example, I can challenge the initial stop of your vehicle, whether the police had probable cause to arrest you, whether you were correctly advised of your rights, whether a breath, blood or urine test was accurate and reliable and whether the police followed legal procedures.

For instance, in State v. Larson, 485 N.W.2d 571 (Minn.App. 1992), I was successful in challenging my client’s stop at a checkpoint. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that a stop when safe rule was entirely subject to the judgment of the individual officer and did not provide any guarantee against the exercise of unbridled discretionor undetectable subterfuge.

Suppression of evidence is one of the most important tools available in your defense. If an alcohol concentration test is not allowed into evidence or if a confession or incriminating statement is ruled inadmissible, your case can be won.

Thus, in State v. McIlraith, A08-0122, (Minn.App. 2009) we were able to exclude my client’s breath test results where the police and jail personnel hampered my client’s attempt to arrange for an independent, additional test of his own.

Recently, a district court judge threw out my client’s written confession in a felony theft case where she had been subjected to unnecessary and unreasonable force against her will by store security. The county attorney subsequently dismissed all charges.

I also have access to skilled private investigators and recognized experts who can uncover evidence and testify in court on your behalf.

The importance of investigators and experts is illustrated in Madison v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 585 N.W.2d 77 (Minn.App. 1998) where the state cancelled my client’s driver’s license upon receiving a letter from a police officer alleging violation of his abstinence requirement. We rebutted this letter with new evidence at trial consisting of (1) testimony of volunteer fire fighter, who was first to arrive on accident scene, that driver was diabetic, that driver’s accident was caused by diabetic reaction and that he noticed no odor of alcohol or other signs of alcohol consumption; (2) testimony of paramedic who examined driver after accident that driver suffered diabetic reaction and that he noticed no odor of alcohol or other signs of alcohol consumption; (3) driver’s testimony that he consumed no alcohol and only root beer on day of accident; (4) testimony of driver’s nephew that he had been with driver for several hours before accident and driver drank root beer, but no alcoholic beverages during their time together; and (6) testimony of driver’s physician that person who had just suffered diabetic reaction might confuse root beer and beer

The cancellation of my client’s license was subsequently rescinded and his driving privileges restored.

It is important that a thorough analysis of your legal case be done early so we can mount an effective defense. Call me right away at 612.799.4740 or send me an email at jamesleviton@leviton-law.com so we can discuss your case.