Being Arrested for DWI Doesn’t Mean You Will Be Convicted

Many people arrested for driving while impaired assume that their case is already decided. If a police officer says they failed a sobriety test or a breath-testing machine reports an alcohol concentration above the legal limit, they may believe there is no point in fighting the charge.

That assumption can be a costly mistake.

A DWI arrest is an accusation, not a conviction. Prosecutors must establish the elements of the offense, and evidence obtained during a DWI investigation may be challenged when there are legitimate legal or factual grounds to do so.

At Gerlach Law, we examine the circumstances surrounding DWI arrests to identify potential weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. From the initial traffic stop through chemical testing and arrest procedures, every stage of an investigation deserves careful attention.

Not every case has a viable defense, and no particular strategy guarantees dismissal. But understanding the evidence and your legal options is essential before deciding how to proceed.

If you’ve been arrested for DWI in Minnesota, contact Gerlach Law to discuss your case.

1. Challenging the Legality of the Traffic Stop

Many DWI investigations begin when a police officer stops a vehicle for a suspected traffic violation or unusual driving behavior.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally, an officer must have an adequate legal basis to initiate a traffic stop.

An officer may claim that the driver was speeding, weaving, failing to signal, or violating another traffic law. However, the available video and other evidence may raise questions about whether the stop was justified.

In some cases, an officer’s observations may not support the reason given for the stop.

If a traffic stop violated constitutional protections, an attorney may seek to suppress evidence obtained as a result. Whether suppression is available depends on the facts and applicable legal rules.

Because traffic stops are frequently recorded, reviewing squad-car and body-camera footage can be an important part of the defense investigation.

2. Questioning Field Sobriety Tests

Police officers commonly use standardized field sobriety tests when investigating suspected impaired driving.

These exercises may include the walk-and-turn test, the one-leg stand, and an eye-movement examination known as the horizontal gaze nystagmus test.

Although these tests are designed to help officers identify signs of impairment, their reliability can depend on how they are administered and interpreted.

A person’s performance may be influenced by factors unrelated to alcohol consumption, including:

• Physical injuries or medical conditions
• Balance or mobility limitations
• Uneven pavement or poor surface conditions
• Inappropriate footwear
• Weather and visibility
• Fatigue, anxiety, or difficulty understanding instructions
• Errors in test administration

An attorney can review whether the officer followed the applicable testing procedures and whether the observations reasonably support the conclusions recorded in the police report.

Poor performance on a field sobriety test does not automatically establish guilt.

3. Examining Breath Test Accuracy

Breath-testing evidence can play a significant role in Minnesota DWI prosecutions.

However, the reliability of a particular result may depend on proper equipment operation, maintenance, administration, and compliance with applicable testing procedures.

Potential questions include whether the equipment was functioning correctly, whether the operator followed required procedures, and whether circumstances existed that could have affected the result.

For example, residual alcohol in the mouth may create concerns about certain breath samples. Relevant medical or physiological conditions may also warrant examination in appropriate cases.

Defense counsel may review testing records, equipment documentation, operator qualifications, and the circumstances surrounding the sample collection.

A reported alcohol concentration above 0.08 does not eliminate every possible defense. However, a successful challenge requires a legally and scientifically supported basis, not simply speculation that the machine might have been wrong.

4. Challenging Blood or Urine Testing Evidence

Some DWI investigations rely on blood or urine testing rather than breath samples.

These cases may raise questions about how samples were collected, stored, transported, and analyzed.

An attorney may examine the chain of custody, laboratory procedures, documentation, and whether the reported findings are sufficient to prove the charged offense.

Testing for drugs presents additional complexities.

The presence of a substance in a person’s system does not always answer every question about impairment at the time of driving. However, Minnesota also has laws addressing certain substances detected through chemical testing, making the precise charge and substance particularly important.

A defense must consider the applicable statute, scientific evidence, and the circumstances of the arrest.

5. Disputing Whether the Driver Was Actually Impaired

Minnesota law allows DWI prosecutions under several different theories.

A person may be charged based on an alcohol concentration at or above the statutory limit, but an impaired-driving charge may also be based on evidence that alcohol, drugs, or a combination of substances affected the person’s ability to drive.

When a case is based on alleged impairment rather than a qualifying chemical test result, the officer’s observations may become particularly significant.

Police reports may describe bloodshot eyes, unusual speech, an odor of alcohol, or difficulties completing field sobriety exercises.

But these observations should be evaluated in context.

Fatigue, allergies, nervousness, medical conditions, and other circumstances may provide alternative explanations for certain behaviors.

The question is not merely whether the officer suspected impairment. It is whether the admissible evidence establishes the offense charged.

6. Investigating Whether the Person Was Driving or in Physical Control

Not every DWI allegation involves a vehicle that was observed moving.

Minnesota’s impaired-driving laws can also apply when a person is in physical control of a motor vehicle.

This means that an individual found inside a parked vehicle may face DWI charges even if an officer never observed them driving.

However, physical control is a fact-specific legal issue.

The location of the vehicle, position of the individual, access to the keys, condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances may be relevant to the analysis.

A person sleeping in a vehicle or waiting for a ride should not assume that a DWI charge is impossible. At the same time, an allegation of physical control does not mean the prosecution has automatically established its case.

7. Reviewing Arrest Procedures and Constitutional Rights

A DWI investigation involves several important legal stages, including the initial detention, development of probable cause, arrest, and chemical testing.

Errors in these procedures may provide grounds for legal challenges.

An attorney may examine whether the officer had probable cause to make the arrest, whether a search or chemical test was lawfully authorized, and whether the individual’s rights were respected.

Questions involving warrants, consent, test refusal, and chemical testing can be particularly complex.

Minnesota’s implied consent laws also establish requirements and consequences that should be carefully evaluated.

A procedural mistake does not necessarily result in dismissal. The importance of any error depends on the law, the facts, and the remedy available.

The Importance of Acting Quickly After a DWI Arrest

One of the biggest mistakes people make after a DWI arrest is focusing exclusively on the criminal charge while overlooking the driver’s license consequences.

In Minnesota, an administrative driver’s license revocation may take effect independently of the criminal prosecution.

A person who wishes to challenge a qualifying implied-consent revocation generally has 60 days after receiving the notice and order of revocation to file a petition for judicial review.

Missing that deadline can eliminate an important opportunity to contest the administrative action.

Getting legal advice early can also help preserve relevant records, recordings, and other evidence before they become more difficult to obtain.

How Gerlach Law Evaluates a DWI Defense

Every DWI case is different. A strategy that works in one case may have little relevance in another.

At Gerlach Law, we evaluate the allegations, available evidence, applicable laws, and client’s individual circumstances before recommending a course of action.

That process may include reviewing police reports, video recordings, chemical testing records, witness statements, and the legal grounds for the initial stop and arrest.

When the evidence supports a legal challenge, we can pursue appropriate motions and defenses. When negotiation is the better course, we work to identify realistic options that may reduce the consequences.

Our role is to help you understand what the prosecution must prove, where the case may be vulnerable, and what steps are available to protect your interests.