Schildgen v. Commissioner of Public Safety
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Minnesota statutes cited
Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Haynes v. State, Department of Public Safety (Alaska 1993)
- Hrncir v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
- Nugent v. Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa 1986)
- Loxtercamp v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
SUMMARY OPINION
FACTS
The trial court rescinded the revocation of Gregory Schildgen’s driver’s license after an implied consent hearing. The Commissioner of Public Safety had revoked Schildgen’s license following his arrest for DWI and a subsequent analysis of his breath alcohol concentration at .10. The trial court determined that the testing method was valid and reliable, but rescinded the revocation on the grounds that the test results were not accurately evaluated because of an alleged margin of error in the breathalyzer instrument.
DECISION
The implied consent law, Minn. Stat. § 169.123 (1982), does not require the Commissioner of Public Safety to prove an alcohol concentration of .10 within an alleged margin for potential error. Grund v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 359 N.W.2d 652 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984).
Under Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 4 (1982), the Commissioner must revoke a person’s license when “the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of .10 or more.” The statute clearly requires a concentration of .10 — not .10 plus or minus an error factor. And, Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 6(3) (1982), expressly limits the issue to be raised at a hearing to whether “the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of .10 or more at the time of testing,” not whether or not the reading was .10, coupled with some margin of error.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.