Minnesota Supreme Court shifts burden on DWI breath tests
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday overturned lower court rulings in a drunken-driving license revocation case and said the state, not drivers, must now prove that roadside breath-test results are reliable before they can be used against a motorist.[1]
In a decision involving driver Derek Alexander Knapp, the justices threw out earlier decisions by a district court and the Court of Appeals, which had placed the burden on Knapp to show his breath sample might have been contaminated during the mandatory 15-minute observation period before the test.[1] The court sent the case back to the district court to decide whether Knapp's breath-test result can be admitted under the new standard, while cautioning that an imperfect observation period does not automatically make a test invalid.[1]
Knapp's case centers on what police are required to do in the 15 minutes before a breath test, a safeguard meant to ensure a driver does not burp, vomit, put anything in their mouth, or otherwise introduce alcohol that could skew the reading.[1] Body-camera video shows the deputy was in the same room with Knapp before the test, but was focused on paperwork rather than continuous, eyes-on observation, which Knapp argued failed to meet state testing standards.[1]
Lower courts had previously relied on guidance that put the onus on drivers to raise specific evidence that their sample was contaminated or the test protocol was broken before a judge would question the result.[1] The Supreme Court rejected that framework, saying that because breath-test results can be central to revoking a person's license or supporting criminal DWI charges, it is the state's responsibility to show the test was administered in a way that produces trustworthy results.[1]
The ruling is expected to ripple through Minnesota's DWI system, affecting both civil license-revocation hearings like Knapp's and criminal prosecutions that rely heavily on breath-test numbers.[1] Defense attorneys are likely to press harder on whether officers truly complied with the 15-minute observation rule and other procedural safeguards, while prosecutors and police agencies may respond by tightening documentation and training around how roadside and stationhouse breath tests are conducted.
Show source details & analysis (1 source)
📌 Key Facts
- Minnesota Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals and district court rulings in the civil driver’s license revocation case of Derek Alexander Knapp.
- The Court rejected prior guidelines that put the burden on drivers to prove their breath samples were contaminated, holding instead that the state must prove the sample’s reliability.
- The case turns on a required 15‑minute observation period before administering a breath test; body‑cam shows the deputy in the room but focused on paperwork rather than continuous monitoring.
- Justices remanded Knapp’s case to district court to decide breath‑test admissibility under the new, state‑burden standard and noted that an imperfect observation period does not automatically invalidate a test.
📰 Source Timeline (1)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time