This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
David Mark Zacharias,
Filed September 12, 2006
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 05-031223
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Judd E. Gushwa, Assistant City Attorney, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for respondent)
Jerry Strauss, Strauss & Goldberger, 250 Second Avenue South, Suite 110, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Peterson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant David Mark Zacharias challenges his conviction of third-degree DWI, arguing that the district court erred in not suppressing evidence that was obtained after police read an unconstitutional implied-consent advisory. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
argues that the district court erred in not suppressing evidence obtained by
the implementation of an unconstitutional implied-consent statute. “[W]hen reviewing a pre-trial order
suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the trial court’s
decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the
facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be
suppressed.” State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (
appellant made several general pretrial motions to suppress evidence “obtained
in violation of the laws of
we conclude that appellant’s argument fails on the merits. Appellant contends that in Fedziuk v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 696
N.W.2d 340 (
to the 2003 amendments, the implied-consent statute’s provision for judicial
review of a prehearing driver’s license revocation provided that “[t]he hearing
must be held at the earliest practicable date, and in any event no later than
60 days following the filing of the petition for review.”
Furthermore, in Polsfuss, ___ N.W.2d ___, No. A05-2108, slip op. at 7 (Minn. App. Aug. 8, 2006), this court concluded that the portion of the implied-consent law that was declared unconstitutional by Fedziuk did not affect the evidence obtained for a related criminal DWI proceeding. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant’s motions to suppress evidence.