In Borchardt, the Defendant was stopped by the DNR because the officer believed Mr. Borchardt was engaged in deer shining. The officer noticed indicia of intoxication and called the local police for assistance as the DNR officer was not authorized to arrest the individual for DWI where, as here, the suspect was operating a truck as opposed to an off-road recreational vehicle.
A Pine County Sheriff's Deputy then read the MInnesota Implied Consent Advisory to Mr. Borchardt and he agreed to submit to a urine test. Testing of the urine sample revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.13. Respondent Commissioner of Public Safety later revoked appellant's driver's license.
Mr. Borchardt was subsequently charged with one count of using artificial lights to locate animals and two counts of driving while intoxicated (DWI). During the companion criminal case, Borchardt's attorney challenged the admissibility of the results of the urine test and at the suppression hearing, Appellant testified that before the Pine County Deputy arrived, the DNR officer told him that if he agreed to provide a urine sample at the scene of the stop then he would not be transported to jail, his truck would not be confiscated, and the officers would transport him and his companion back to his cabin.
He further testified that these statements were a factor in his decision to submit to a urine test at the scene of the stop. Appellant argued that the statements that he would not be taken to jail and his truck would not be confiscated if he agreed to provide a urine sample amounted to coercion and therefore his consent was not voluntary. The district court agreed and suppressed the results of the urine test. The district court also dismissed the DWI charge that was based on appellant driving with an alcohol concentration over the legal limit in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5) (2012).
Mr. Borchardt also challenged the revocation of his driver's license and at the license revocation hearing, neither party offered any live testimony. Instead, the parties stipulated that the record would consist of a packet containing the implied-consent advisory, peace officer's certificate, urine test results, and police reports; the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order from the hearing in the criminal case; and the transcript of the hearing in the criminal case. The district court at the revocation hearing, however, sustained the license revocation determining that Mr. Borchardt had not been coerced into submitting to testing.
On appeal, Mr. Borchardt argued that the district court erred by applying the wrong burden of proof to determine the case and Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the district court, stating:
"For a search to fall under
the consent exception to the warrant requirement, the state must show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the individual freely and voluntarily
consented to the search." (Citation omitted). The voluntariness of
consent is determined by considering the totality of the circumstances" * * *
"In this case, the district
court's conclusions of law include the determination that "[appellant] has
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the law enforcement
coerced [appellant] in order to collect the incriminating evidence." Thus,
we agree that the district court put the burden on appellant to prove his consent was not given freely and voluntarily,
when based on Brooks the burden should be on the state to show
that it was. Therefore, we conclude that the district court's finding that
appellant voluntarily consented to the urine test was based on the erroneous
application of the law, and reverse the district court's decision and remand
for the district court to apply the correct burden of proof."
Moral of the Story: You are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty by the State!
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment