Monday, July 25, 2016

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided July 25, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police will "tailor" their testimony to avoid the impact of a previous appellate court decision.

In this case, Mr. Frank was driving his pickup truck in Crow Wing County at approximately 12:35 a.m.  A police officer was driving his squad in the opposite direction and as the two vehicle approached each other, Mr. Frank flashed his bright lights, "very briefly". The police officer then turned around and stopped Mr. Frank, who was subsequently arrested for DWI.

Mr. Frank challenged the validity of the stop of his vehicle in a license revocation hearing but the district court upheld the revocation.  

Minn. Stat. § 169.61(b) provides that, "[w]hen the driver of a vehicle approaches a vehicle within 1,000 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver." But in Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 819 N.W.2d 465 at 471-472 (Minn. App. 2012) the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the statute, "Does not prohibit drivers from momentarily flashing their high beams at oncoming traffic, so long as the flashing is brief and conducted in such a manner that it does not blind or impair other drivers." 

So what did the officer testify to in this case?  The officer testified "that appellant's headlights were 'extremely bright,' to the extent that they 'literally just about blinded [him].' The officer testified that he pulled onto the shoulder and stopped because he was blinded by appellant's headlights. 

RIGHT! The problem is the district court bought the officer's testimony and on appeal, the appellate court will not reverse a finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous as the appellate court is not in any position to judge the credibility of a witness.

Moral Of The Story: Be careful who you flash!

If you or a loved one have 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.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Puro v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided July 5, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which contains a good discussion of "physical control".

In Puro, the Appellant went to a restaurant and began consuming alcohol.  Around 4:00 p.m., the bartender asked Mr. Puro to leave because he was getting rowdy from having had too much to drink.  Mr. Puro left the restaurant and made his way to his wife's Subaru which was parked in the restaurant's parking lot.  Mr. Puro fell asleep in the car and was subsequently discovered by the police.

The officer approached the Subaru and tapped on the window to try to wake up Mr. Puro who was sitting in the driver's seat but the engine was not running.  Mr. Puro appeared startled and subsequently opened the car door to speak to the officer.  The keys to the vehicle were located on the floor beneath the feet of Mr. Puro.

Mr. Puro was arrested for DWI and he challenged the revocation of his driver's license arguing that the police did not have probable cause to believe he was "in physical control" of a motor vehicle.  The district court concluded that the state proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Puro was in physical control and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, stating:

"Under Minnesota's implied-consent law, the state may revoke a person's license if he is in physical control of a vehicle in order to "deter intoxicated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers and to act as a preventive measure to enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes." State v. Fleck, 111 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). The term "in physical control" includes "when an intoxicated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances in which the vehicle, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property." Id. (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted). A person is in physical control of a vehicle if the person has the means to initiate any movement and is close to the operating controls of the vehicle."

"But a person is not in physical control when the person has 'relinquished control of the vehicle to a designated driver."'Id. And presence in the vehicle by itself is not enough to show physical control. Id. This court examines the overall situation to make the determination, which includes the examination of a number of factors "including: the person's location in proximity to the vehicle; the location of the keys; whether the person was a passenger in the vehicle; who owned the vehicle; and the vehicle's operability." Id. Whether a person intends to drive is not part of the analysis in determining if the person was in physical control."

"Here, the officer found Puro alone, intoxicated, and asleep or passed out in the legally parked and operable Subaru. Puro, like Fleck, was in the driver's seat. The keys, which were on the floor between his feet, were readily accessible to him. He could have picked up the keys, started the vehicle, and tried to drive home." Therefore, the district court was correct in finding that Mr. Puro was in physical control of a motor vehicle.

Moral Of The Story: If you have been drinking, do not get into a car except as a passenger!!

If you or a loved one have 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.