Legal Question in DUI Law in Minnesota

Re: preliminary breath test

It sounds like you may be looking for a defense to refusing the evidentiary breath machine. But I will try to answer your question as asked.

The arresting police officer is not currently required to affirmatively inform the driver-suspect in a DWI investigation that the "non-evidentiary," "Preliminary Breath Test" (PBT) does not meet the chemical testing requirements of the implied consent and criminal statutes in Minnesota. However, the driver whose license is revoked based upon "refusal" to submit to chemical testing upon lawful demand by a police officer, may assert a defense of "reasonable refusal." Subject to a research effort to confirm or refute: it may be possible to successfully make a case that where the driver's reason for refusal was his belief that the PBT satisfied the chemical testing requirement; that he told the police officer this; and the police officer failed to correct that driver's misunderstanding of the law's requirements, that this refusal was reasonable under those circumstances -- and, therefore the license revocation should be rescinded, and also all DWI-criminal charges dismissed/acquitted.