Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC
16 followers
16 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
The firm is pleased to announce that Attorney Chuck Ramsay was recently successful in defending his client, J.V., against the ramifications of a third degree #DWI conviction in Anoka County, MN. Additionally, he was able to recover the vehicle that had been seized at the time of his client’s arrest. For this reason, our firm considers the outcome of this case to be a double victory. Click on the link below to learn more.   
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
The legal team at Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC is proud to announce that Attorney Chuck Ramsay was recently successful in defending yet another client against the ramifications of a DWI conviction. The woman, D.O., had been charged with gross misdemeanor test refusal and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), which would have led to the suspension of her driver’s license for one year, up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. To learn more about this case, click on the link below. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
If you have recently been arrested for DWI in #Minneapolis, MN, you will need an experienced lawyer in your corner. For this reason, we encourage you to find out what sets Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC apart from the rest. Not only does our lead attorney possesses more than 15 years of experience, but he was even recognized as an “Attorney of the Year” in 2011. Click on the link below for more information. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
If you have recently been pulled over and arrested for DWI in #Minnesota, it is important that you ask yourself whether or not the law enforcement officer had probable cause to make an initial stop—as you may be able to challenge the evidence being held against you if they did not. To learn more about this area of the law, click on the link below.  
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Have you been arrested and charged with DWI in Minneapolis? If so, it is important to understand what legal penalties you may be up against. Not only could you be facing time in jail, but you may be forced to install an ignition interlock device in your vehicle for a period of time. This mechanism will prohibit you from turning on your engine until you have provided a sufficient breath sample. If it determines that your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is over the mandated limit, your car will not turn on.

An ignition interlock device can be expensive to install and/or maintain, so you should not hesitate to defend yourself against a conviction while you still have time. To learn more about this particular #DWI penalty, however, Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC encourages you to watch our related video. By clicking on the link below, you will have the opportunity to hear what Attorney Chuck Ramsay has to say.   
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Our firm recently represented a #DWI case in which an unreliable urine test was being used as evidence against our client. Initially we moved to have the case dismissed, but when our request was denied, we decided to take a different approach. Since the urine test was the only piece of evidence that the case was hinging upon, we argued that, for two reasons, the results were insufficient proof of our client’s guilt. First, the results of the test showed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08%. Our firm argued that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s method of analyzing a fluid sample was not accurate enough to definitely prove that the sample was not, in fact, 0.79% or lower—which would have meant that our client’s BAC was not above the allotted legal limit. Secondly, we argued that the particular machine that was used to evaluate the sample was calibrated in a way that could yield inflated results. For this reason, the evidence was eventually thrown out. Click below for more information. 
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Recently, Ramsay Law Firm, PLLC was successful in arguing that the state does not have the right to forfeit a driver’s vehicle for a driving while intoxicated (DWI) offense if they are not eventually convicted of the crime. Although the state argued that they should have the right to keep these vehicles regardless of whether or not a defendant is convicted of a #DWI offense, the Supreme Court disregarded these statements and ruled that such actions were not substantiated by Minnesota’s DWI forfeiture law. As such, the firm was successful in gaining a favorable outcome for their client in the case, Patino v. One 2007 Chevy, by filing an amici curiae brief on behalf of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. For more information about the Supreme Court ruling in this case, click on the link below.      
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded