Reviewed by the Marketing Team Last updated
Minnesota law gives a person tested the right to an additional chemical test by someone of their choosing, subject to specific conditions. The additional sample must be obtained at the place of custody, after the officer-directed test, and at no expense to the state. This right is not permission to replace or refuse the official test.
An independent test may provide additional evidence for a Minnesota DWI case, sometimes called DUI. Its usefulness depends on the sample, timing, analysis, and other facts. Our Minnesota DWI defense team can evaluate the testing record.
What does Minnesota’s additional-test law actually provide?
Minnesota Statutes section 169A.51, subdivision 7(b), permits a chemical test or tests by someone of the tested person’s choosing in addition to testing directed by police. The statute sets three important limits:
- Sequence: the additional sample follows the police-directed test.
- Location: the sample is obtained where the person is in custody.
- Expense: the additional testing is not at the state’s expense.
These conditions matter when arranging a test and when later evaluating whether the right was denied. A test obtained after release may raise separate evidence questions; do not assume it is the same statutory custody-based procedure.
Can you insist on your own test instead of the official test?
No. The additional-test provision supplements the officer-directed test. It does not cancel the legal requirements for official testing. Refusing a properly required test can create separate criminal and license consequences.
Before applying a general statement about refusal, identify whether police requested roadside screening, an evidentiary breath test, or a blood or urine sample under a warrant or recognized exception. See our guide to Minnesota breath-test distinctions.
What should you document if you request another test?
Make the request clear, and preserve a factual timeline for counsel. Useful details include when you asked, whom you asked, the response, what calls or arrangements were attempted, and where you were held. If someone was contacted to collect a sample, retain the contact information and any existing messages or records.
Do not alter communications or try to reconstruct a false record. An accurate account of an unsuccessful request is more useful than an assumption that every obstacle was police interference.
What if you cannot obtain the independent test?
Inability to obtain an additional test does not automatically exclude the police test. Section 169A.51, subdivision 7(b), distinguishes failure or inability to obtain testing from an additional test being prevented or denied by the officer. The statute makes that distinction important to admissibility.
A lawyer should review the request, recordings, access provided, attempted arrangements, and reasons the test did not occur. Whether the officer prevented or denied testing is a legal and factual question. It should not be promised from a short description alone.
Does a different result prove the official test was wrong?
Not by itself. A meaningful comparison requires the collection times, sample types, laboratory methods, and complete reports. A later result is not automatically a measurement of the person’s condition at the earlier driving time. Counsel may need a qualified expert to explain what the results can and cannot establish.
Likewise, a result below .08 does not resolve every impairment allegation. Our Minnesota DWI below .08 article explains the difference between numerical-threshold and impairment charges.
What if police blood results are still pending?
Track existing criminal court dates and license notices while the laboratory work is pending. An additional-test request does not replace a court appearance, license challenge, or compliance with release conditions. Read our pending blood-test results guide for records to preserve and questions to raise.
What should a lawyer review?
Bring the official test record, any independent report, collection paperwork, receipts, license notices, and your timeline. Counsel can examine the legal basis for testing, the additional-test request, and the reliability and relevance of the evidence together. No single test or procedural concern guarantees dismissal.
Talk with a Minnesota DWI defense lawyer
Request a free criminal-defense consultation with Martine Law. Minnesota criminal defense is provided by Martine Law PLLC. Phones and chat are answered 24/7, with AI covering when no staff is free.
Prepared October 14, 2026. General information about Minnesota law; advice requires review of your incident date, records, and individual circumstances.
