Hayes v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Minn.Ct.App., 10/6/2009. A state trooper arrested Mr. Hayes on suspicion of driving while impaired. The trooper requested Mr. Hayes to submit a urine sample, which revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.13. The Commissioner revoked Mr. Hayes’s license.
At the implied consent hearing Mr. Hayes offered expert testimony about the urine test but the trial court rebuffed the offer. Mr. Hayes’s expert wanted to testify that the trooper did not obtain a proper urine sample that would permit a proper measurement of Hayes‟s alcohol concentration at the time of the test because Hayes provided a urine sample without having previously voided his bladder.
The appellate court rejects this “urine pooling” theory by pointing out that it had already considered it and rejected it ten years ago: Genung v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 589 N.W.2d 311 (Minn.Ct.App. 1999), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999).
Other challenges to the use of this urine test have been successful for the driver. For instance, see here, and here. A petition for further review is pending before the Supreme Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment