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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Stoneburner v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided August 8, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police do not have to prove that you were speeding in order to stop you for speeding.

In Stoneburner, Cold Spring-Richmond police officer Christi Hoffman, (who had more than twelve years of law-enforcement experience), was on patrol in the city of Richmond, Minnesota. Hoffman was traveling eastbound when she noticed a westbound car on Highway 23 that she estimated was traveling over the posted 50-mile-per-hour speed limit. Hoffman activated her squad car radar unit to confirm her visual observation. The target car was about one-half mile away at that point, which is within the radar-unit range. The radar unit showed speeds of 62, 61, and 60, at which point she locked the display, confirming her visual estimate of speed. Hoffman stopped the car, which was driven by appellant Robert David Stoneburner.

After noticing some indicia of intoxication, the officer had Mr. Stoneburner perform some field sobriety tests which, according to the officer, he failed.  Mr. Stoneburner was placed under arrest and subsequently submitted to a breath test which revealed an alcohol concentration level in excess of .08.

Mr. Stoneburner challenged the revocation of his driver's license challenging Hoffman's ability to make a visual estimate of speed and primarily claiming that the radar device had not been properly calibrated because Hoffman testified that she performed only a limited internal calibration test, and not an external calibration measurement.

The district court sustained Stoneburner's license revocation, concluding that Hoffman had a reasonable and articulable basis for stopping Stoneburner's car based on her visual observation of speed.  

On Appeal, Stoneburner argued that the radar evidence did not provide a particularized and objective basis for the stop because Hoffman did not comply with Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(a) (2014). This section states that "[i]n any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant" radar evidence is admissible if (1) the officer has been trained to operate the device; (2) the officer can describe how the device was set up and operated; (3) there was only minimal interference or distortion in the surrounding environment; and (4) the device was subject to testing by an external method that is accurate and reliable. Stoneburner argued that Hoffman did not testify about a reliable external testing mechanism and, therefore, she had no particularized and objective basis for the stop.

The Court of Appeals rejected Stoneburner's argument and affirmed the district court stating, "Minnesota courts have approved the use of visual speed estimation when the witness has an opportunity to observe the subject vehicle and has experience with estimating the speed of moving vehicles, particularly when the witness, like Hoffman, has years of law-enforcement experience and training." And, "...the issue here is not whether the state or the commissioner can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stoneburner was exceeding the speed limit prior to the stop; the issue is whether Hoffman had a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting" that Stoneburner was violating the law."

In this case, "Hoffman testified to specific facts that led her to conclude that Stoneburner was violating the law: she visually observed a car that appeared to be exceeding the speed limit; she had received training in estimating the speed of moving vehicles; and her radar unit, even if not properly calibrated, confirmed her visual observation. The district court found that Hoffman was a credible witness. Because these facts provided a basis for a brief investigatory stop, the district court did not err by determining that the stop was lawful."

Moral of The Story: If you even look guilty, the police can stop you!

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.