Minneapolis DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided November 23, 2015, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that the police do not need probable cause to request that a DWI suspect submit to field sobriety tests (FST's).

On September 1, 2014, a police officer saw Mr. Telschow's vehicle cross over the crosswalk and stop in the middle of an intersection in Savage, Minnesota. The officer activated the squad car's emergency lights and siren and continued to follow appellant, observing several additional traffic violations. The officer initiated a traffic stop and noticed that appellant's eyes were bloodshot and watery and there was an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. Appellant admitted to drinking a few beers prior to driving. The officer asked appellant to step out of the vehicle so she could ascertain whether he was able to drive. The officer led appellant through a series of field sobriety tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test, and concluded that he showed signs of impairment on each test. The officer administered a preliminary breath test which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.207.    

On appeal, Mr. Telshow argued that field sobriety tests and preliminary breath tests are searches that must be supported by probable cause. 

But the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected that claim, stating: "The appropriate standard for conducting a field sobriety test or a preliminary breath test is whether an officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver is impaired. See State v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687, 696 (Minn. App. 2012) (determining an officer's "observation of two indicia of intoxication"n . . . reasonably justified further intrusions in the form of field sobriety and preliminary breath testing."); State, Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn. 1981) (stating an officer has the authority to administer a preliminary breath test where "specific and articulable facts" form the basis to believe that a driver is impaired). A reasonable articulable suspicion exists if the police officer can present "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity." State v. Cripps, 533 N.W.2d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995). The district court concluded that the officer observed indicia of intoxication which provided the necessary articulable suspicion to require field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test, and the record supports that determination."

I agree with Mr. Telschow.  The Fourth Amendment requires that searches, other than pat-down frisks, be supported by probable cause.  Taking a breath sample of a suspect at the scene of a stop is not a limited "pat-down" type search. The breath test taken at the police station requires probable cause.  So it seems to me that the Court of Appeals in this case has created a distinction without a difference.

If you or a loved one has been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.