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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Wurtz (Decided November 16, 2015, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that if you think you are in trouble, it is NEVER a good idea to talk to the police!

In Wurtz, the Defendant was hunting-while-under-the-influence-of alcohol (guns and booze. What could go wrong?) and as the Defendant was approaching his parked car, he encountered officer Beckman of Cottonwood County.  

Officer Beckmann was able to smell a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from Mr. Wurtz. Officer Beckmann asked the Defendant to submit to field-sobriety testing but the Defendant claimed previous injuries that he thought would prevent him from doing the field-sobriety testing. Officer Beckmann then asked appellant to submit to a PBT. Defendant agreed, and his PBT result was . 114.  Mr. Wurtz then admitted he had consumed six or seven beers.

On Appeal, the Defendant argued that the district court erred by concluding that he was not in custody for Miranda purposes at the time he admitted in response to questions that he had consumed six or seven beers while hunting.  

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected this contention, explaining:

"A statement produced by a custodial interrogation is inadmissible unless the suspect is first advised of certain constitutional rights, including the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612 (1966); State v. Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d 305, 308 (Minn. 1999). A person is in custody for Miranda purposes when there has been a "formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest." Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 430, 104 S. Ct. 1136, 1144 (1984) (quotation omitted). We apply an objective standard to determine whether, "based on all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest." State v. Thompson, 788 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). But general on-scene questions such as "Have you been drinking?" and "How much?" do not convert a detention into an arrest, and therefore, do not trigger the need for a Miranda warning."

In this case, the Defendant was standing in a parking lot when he made the incriminating statements to the officer.  The Defendant argued that Officer Beckman's failure to tell the Defendant he could leave, shows that he was in custody.  But the Court of Appeals disagreed, stating:

"But the custody determination does not turn on "merely whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave." Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d at 637. Instead, "an interrogation is custodial if, based on all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person would believe he or she was in police custody to the degree associated with formal arrest.'"

 

Moral Of The Story:  If you are suspected of a crime, keep your mouth shut!!!

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