Monthly Archives: March 2026

FELONY SENTENCING AND PROBATION REVOCATION HEARINGS: The One Sentence a Judge Should Never Say (26-05)

Dear Colleagues,

Let me start with a simple question: What is the one sentence a judge should never say at sentencing or a probation hearing?

If you’ve spent any time in a courtroom, you’ve probably heard some version of it—and perhaps even said it yourself.

This new training update takes a close look at a surprisingly common (and understandable) judicial instinct: trying to impress upon a defendant the seriousness of probation… and accidentally going a step too far. As the Minnesota Supreme Court made clear in State v. Finch, that one step can have real consequences, including disqualification of the judge from a future proceeding.

In this update, I break down:

• The one statement that crosses the line
• Why the Austin analysis makes that statement improper
• How this issue typically arises in real courtrooms (with examples we’ve all seen)
• The 4 key takeaways from Finch every judge and attorney should know
• A simple, practical way to fix the problem if it happens in your courtroom

And—true to form—you’ll also find a visual illustration that captures the moment perfectly (and may feel just a little too familiar).

This is one of those issues that is easy to overlook—but once you see it clearly, you’ll never miss it again.

👉 Click here for a print ready copy of Training Update 26-5:

👉 Click here to access Update 26-5 on the Minnesota Judicial Training and Education Website:

As always, I hope you find this both helpful in your practice and useful in the courtroom. If it resonates with you, please feel free to share it with colleagues who might benefit.


Warm regards,

Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge
Minnesota Judicial Training & Education Blog                                                 

   

                                

“REASONABLE SUSPICION” After State v. Lorsung: What Every Judge and DWI Practitioner Needs to Know

State v. Lorsung, A24-0540, (Minn. Feb. 4, 2026)

Subject: New Training Update: State v. Lorsung — “Reasonable Suspicion” After the Minnesota Supreme Court’s Latest DWI Decision.

Dear Colleagues,

Last month, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an important decision in State v. Lorsung, clarifying what constitutes reasonable suspicion for an officer to request a preliminary breath test (PBT) during a DWI investigation.

The ruling may surprise many practitioners. In Lorsung, the driver admitted to drinking three beers but displayed no classic signs of impairment, spoke clearly, balanced normally, and even passed the HGN test with zero clues. The officer himself believed the driver did not appear impaired. Yet the Court still concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to request a PBT.

The decision significantly reshapes how courts will evaluate reasonable suspicion in DWI investigations. As the Court explains, the absence of traditional indicia of impairment — and even satisfactory roadside performance — may weaken suspicion but does not necessarily eliminate it unless the known facts “conclusively negate” the possibility of impairment.

This training update examines the Court’s reasoning, breaks down the case using the FIRAC method, and highlights several key takeaways that will directly affect suppression litigation, roadside investigations, and client counseling in DWI cases moving forward.

You can read the full training update here:

MJTU 26-4 State v. Lorsung

As always, I hope you find the update helpful. If you believe others in your office or professional network would benefit from it, please feel free to forward it along.

Warm regards,

Alan F. Pendleton
Of Counsel, Martine Law Firm
Director of Mentorship and Education
Former District Court Judge
Minnesota Judicial Training & Education Blog