Axelberg v. Comm'r Safety

• Decision Date: 21 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. A12–1341.,A12–1341.
• Parties: Jennifer Marie AXELBERG, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

848 N.W.2d 206

Jennifer Marie AXELBERG, Appellant,

v.COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent.

No. A12–1341.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 21, 2014.

Syllabus by the Court

A person who challenges the revocation of his or her driver's license in an implied consent hearing held pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3 (2012), may not raise the affirmative defense of necessity.

Ryan Pacyga, Ryan Pacyga Criminal Defense, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN, for respondent.

Charles A. Ramsay, Daniel J. Koewler, Ramsey Law Firm, PLLC, Roseville, MN, for amicus curiae Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice and Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether a person who has had his or her driver's license revoked under Minnesota's implied consent law may raise the common law affirmative defense of necessity in a civil implied consent hearing under Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3 (2012). Because we conclude that the plain language of the statute does not permit a person to raise the affirmative defense of necessity at an implied consent hearing, we affirm.

This case arises out of a domestic assault incident that took place over Memorial Day weekend in 2011. Appellant Jennifer Marie Axelberg (Axelberg), her husband Jason Axelberg (Jason), and two of their friends were staying at a lake cabin in Mora. On Sunday night, Axelberg and Jason were drinking at the nearby Fish Lake Resort. After they returned to the cabin, Axelberg and Jason started to argue while they were outside the cabin. Jason pushed Axelberg and hit her twice on the head.

Fearing for her safety, Axelberg got into her car and locked the doors. Axelberg retreated to the car because she felt that it was the only safe place available to her. Axelberg did not believe she could outrun her husband. And she could not go inside the cabin, because Jason was between her and the cabin. Finally, Axelberg could not call for help, because Jason had her cell phone.

Even after Axelberg got into the car, Jason continued to yell at her and started hitting the car's windshield. Eventually, Jason climbed onto the car, started screaming, and broke the windshield with his fist. Axelberg then started the car. Jason was still on top of the car, but he eventually climbed off as Axelberg started driving. Jason ran after Axelberg, yelling. Axelberg drove nine-tenths of a mile to Fish Lake Resort, the closest open business. Jason and one of the friends then walked to the resort, where Jason again confronted Axelberg in the parking lot. Someone at the resort called 911.

Law enforcement arrived at the resort at around 2:28 a.m. and arrested Jason. An officer also arrested Axelberg for driving while impaired. Axelberg was asked to take a chemical test for the presence of alcohol, and she agreed to a urine test. The test revealed an alcohol concentration of .16, which is twice the legal limit. SeeMinn.Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 2(1) (2012).

Pursuant to Minnesota's implied consent law, respondent, the Commissioner of Public Safety, revoked Axelberg's driver's license. Minn.Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 4 (2012). Axelberg sought judicial review of the revocation. Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 2 (2012).¹ At the implied consent hearing, Axelberg argued that she should not lose her license because she acted out of necessity to protect herself from her violent husband. The district court held that necessity is not an affirmative defense that drivers may raise to challenge a civil license revocation. A divided court of appeals affirmed. Axelberg v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 831 N.W.2d 682 (Minn.App.2013). We granted Axelberg's petition for further review.

I.

On appeal, Axelberg argues that she may raise the necessity defense at the implied consent hearing held pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3 (2012).² The Commissioner argues that the statute does not permit drivers to raise the necessity defense. The parties' arguments present an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. In re Welfare of J.B., 782 N.W.2d 535, 539 (Minn.2010). When a statute is “clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2012). We agree with the Commissioner that the plain language of Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3, does not allow drivers to raise the necessity defense.

Minnesota law requires the Commissioner to revoke a person's driver's license when the Commissioner receives a certification from a peace officer stating, in part, that the person submitted to a chemical test for the presence of alcohol and the test results indicated an alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. Minn.Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 4. A person may seek judicial review of the license revocation by filing a petition for judicial review. Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 2. The statute requires that the district court hold an implied consent hearing on the petition for review. Id., subd. 3. And the statute limits the “scope” of an implied consent hearing. Id. Specifically, under Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b), “[t]he scope of the hearing is limited to the issues in clauses (1) to (10).” None of the 10 issues listed involve the necessity defense. See id.³

The Commissioner argues that because the necessity defense is not included in the list of issues to which the Legislature has “limited” the implied consent hearing, drivers may not raise that defense. We agree. The Legislature has directed that words in Minnesota statutes are construed according to their “common and approved usage.” Minn.Stat. § 645.08 (2012). The word “limited” means “[c]onfined or restricted within certain limits.” The American Heritage Dictionary 1019 (5th ed.2011). The use of the word “limited” in Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3, then, means that the issues a driver may raise at an implied consent hearing are restricted to those that fall within the topics in clauses (1) through (10) of section 169A.53, subdivision 3(b). Because the necessity defense does not fall within one of those topics, the plain language of the statute compels us to hold that drivers may not raise the necessity defense at implied consent hearings.

Notwithstanding the Legislature's use of the term “limited” in subdivision 3(b), Axelberg argues that the scope of the hearing should not be so strictly confined. After all, Axelberg notes, the Legislature has provided for an affirmative defense in subdivision 3(c). In this subdivision, the statute provides that “[i]t is an affirmative defense for the petitioner to prove that, at the time of the refusal, the petitioner's refusal to permit the test was based upon reasonable grounds.” Minn.Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(c). The Legislature's inclusion of one specific affirmative defense does not lead us to conclude that the Legislature meant to also include other affirmative defenses, such as the necessity defense, nor does it create an ambiguity as to the Legislature's intent.

An ambiguity might be created if the Legislature had provided for an affirmative defense that is not encompassed within the 10 issues that drivers may raise at the implied consent hearing. Inclusion of such a separate defense might call the meaning of the word “limited” into question and indicate that the word “limited” in subdivision 3(b) was not, in fact, meant to exclude the use of affirmative defenses. But that is not the case with respect to the affirmative defense that the Legislature specified in subdivision 3(c). The presence of the “reasonable grounds to refuse” affirmative defense does not open up the statute to additional affirmative defenses or create ambiguity as to the meaning of “limited” because the court could determine that whether the refusal was “reasonable” is within the scope of the issue listed in clause (7): whether the person refused to permit the test.⁴Id., subd. 3(b)(7).

In addition, if we were to read “ an affirmative defense” in subdivision 3(c) to allow for innumerable other affirmative defenses to be offered at implied consent hearings, we would be reading the word “limited” in subdivision 3(b) out of the statute entirely. The rules of statutory interpretation do not permit us to do that. SeeMinn.Stat. § 645.17(2) (2012) (“[T]he legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.”).⁵

Axelberg also argues that we should reject the interpretation that reasonable refusal, as specified in subdivision 3(c), is the only affirmative defense available because we do not presume that statutes derogate the common law unless they do so expressly or by necessary implication. Brekke v. THM Biomedical, Inc., 683 N.W.2d 771, 776 (Minn.2004) (“We have long presumed that statutes are consistent with the common law, and if a statute abrogates the common law, the abrogation must be by express wording or necessary implication.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because there is no indication that the Legislature meant to restrict common law defenses in the Implied Consent Law, Axelberg argues, the common law defense of necessity must still be available. Axelberg's argument fails, though, because the canon of construction on which Axelberg relies does not apply to the Implied Consent Law, Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.50–.53 (2012), and even if it did, application of the canon confirms that the Legislature intended to preclude drivers from raising the common law defense of necessity.

As the Commissioner rightly points out, modern regulatory legislation, such as the implied consent administrative scheme, is “generally regarded as a newly conceived system of legal arrangements to deal with emergent problems in society.” 3 Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 61:3, at 364 (7th ed.2008). Such legislation “is not subject to the rule of strict...