Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Schlicher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided April 17, 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the idle curiosity of the police officer does not justify an automobile stop.

In Schlicher, a Wabasha police officer on patrol saw appellant David Kenneth Schlicher's car turn onto a narrow dirt road. The officer knew the private road led only to a commercial business, which was closed at that hour, so he followed appellant. As the officer drove down the dirt road, he observed appellant's vehicle coming toward him. The officer reversed his squad car because the road was too narrow for either car to drive past the other, and he "[did not] want to approach the vehicle from the front." The officer stopped his squad car near the end of the dirt road and exited his car. During this time, another police squad car arrived. Schlicher's car was still moving when the officer got out of his squad car. The officer approached the car and, after an investigation, arrested appellant for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Schlicher refused to take a breath test, and his license was revoked.

Schlicher filed a petition in district court challenging the revocation of his driving privileges and requesting a hearing. After the hearing the district court ruled, "that the officer's stop was constitutional and stated that, "the officer observed Schlicher vehicle turn into a narrow private dirt drive that led to a business which had been closed for hours . . . [which] gave the officer a reasonable articulable basis" to stop the appellant.

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court stating:

"Under the Minnesota Constitution, a seizure occurs when, given the totality of the circumstances, "a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave." In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 780 (Minn. 1993)."

"Generally, no seizure occurs when an officer merely walks up to and speaks with a driver sitting in an already-stopped vehicle." Id. at 152. Conversely, with an already-stopped car, a police officer's actions of preventing a vehicle from moving by boxing the vehicle in and activating the squad car's sirens constitute a seizure because these actions create the impression that a reasonable person would believe that he or she is not free to leave."

"Here, the officer's squad car met appellant's vehicle head-on while appellant was driving down the private narrow road, toward the main road. The officer did not reverse his squad car out onto the main road, which would have given appellant complete access to the main road; instead, he stopped his car on the narrow dirt road, exited his vehicle, and began walking toward appellant's car while appellant was still driving toward him. Even though the officer believed appellant's car could have "squeezed by," appellant testified that he did not believe his car could drive past the officer's car in order to get to the main road.  Accordingly, considering the positioning of the officer's squad car on the narrow road, the fact that the officer exited his vehicle while appellant was still driving, and the fact that another squad car had arrived on scene, we conclude that the officer's actions constituted a seizure because no reasonable person in appellant's position would have felt free to leave."

"An investigative stop of a motor vehicle is a seizure, and in order to justify the stop, police must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity....Here, the officer did not articulate an objective basis for the seizure. There are no allegations that the officer became concerned with appellant's conduct, other than the fact that appellant was driving down a private narrow dirt road that led to a closed commercial business. In fact, the officer testified that his actions were motivated by his curiosity. This alone is insufficient to justify a seizure...The only factors to which the officer testified that would suggest criminal activity were the time of night, that he had never before seen anyone driving on that private narrow road, and that the narrow road led to a closed business. These factors are insufficient."

Moral Of The Story: Curiosity Can Kill Your Case!


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, April 11, 2017

Minnesota DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Trousil (Decided April 11, 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police do not have to get a search warrant for a blood sample if they don't have time to obtain one.

In Trousil, on September 27, 2014, Deputy Wacker and Deputy Stern of the Douglas County Sheriffs Office were dispatched to an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident. At some point, Sergeant Windhurst joined the deputies on the scene. They found the ATV tipped over on its side and the driver, Trousil, injured and lying in a ditch. Trousil had difficulty remaining conscious and smelled of alcohol. An ambulance arrived and Sergeant Windhurst contacted the county attorney's office, who advised the officers to get a warrant if Trousil would stay at Douglas County Hospital, but to have blood drawn if Trousil was going to be flown to another hospital within a short period of time.

Sergeant Windhurst contacted the county attorney's office, who advised the officers to get a warrant if Trousil would stay at Douglas County Hospital, but to have blood drawn if Trousil was going to be flown to another hospital within a short period of time.

In the meantime, Deputy Wacker asked a nurse at Douglas County Hospital if Trousil was going to be flown to a different hospital. The nurse told Deputy Wacker that they intended to fly Trousil to St. Cloud Hospital, and the flight crew said that they intended to leave in 15 to 20 minutes. Deputy Wacker believed that Trousil might not remain at St. Cloud Hospital due to the severity of his injuries and decided that there was insufficient time to obtain a warrant. Deputy Wacker requested that Douglas County Hospital staff perform a blood draw. The hospital did so at 2:20 a.m. Deputy Wacker notified Deputy Stern that Douglas County Hospital was transferring Trousil to St. Cloud Hospital, and thus Deputy Stern did not complete the warrant application.

The blood test sample result revealed an alcohol concentration level of .214 and Trousil was subsequently charged with second and third degree DWI.  Before trial, Trousil moved to suppress the results of the alcohol-concentration test obtained from the warrantless blood draw. The district court denied the motion, concluding that exigent circumstances absolved the officers of the warrant requirement.

On appeal, Trousil argued that the warrantless blood draw was unconstitutional because the officers had sufficient time to obtain a telephonic warrant and, therefore, no exception to the warrant requirement applied to this case.  Unfortunately, the Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed, stating:

"An exception to the warrant requirement exists if the state can show that 'the exigencies of the situation make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.' Mincey v. Arizona, All U.S. 385, 394, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 2414 (1978) (quotation omitted). Exigent circumstances may exist when 'there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.' Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509, 98 S. Ct. 1942, 1949 (1978)."

The Court of Appeals then noted, "The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a warrantless blood draw under the exigent-circumstances exception in State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015). The Minnesota Supreme Court found the following circumstances relevant: (1) law enforcement had reason to believe that the accused was intoxicated at the time of the accident; (2) the accused sustained serious injuries that necessitated emergency treatment; (3) the need for medical treatment rendered the future availability of a blood draw uncertain; (4) the officer did not know how long the accused would remain at the same hospital or whether further medical care would preclude obtaining a sample; (5) the accused might be transported to a different hospital; and (6) it was important to draw the accused's blood within the statutory two-hour period."

"This case presents similar facts to Stavish. Deputy Wacker believed that Trousil was intoxicated at the time of the accident because he could smell alcohol on his person. Trousil was having trouble remaining conscious, was badly injured by the accident, and needed emergency care. It took additional time for an ambulance to bring Trousil to Douglas County Hospital and for the deputies to notify Trousil's parents of the accident. Sergeant Windhurst remained at the scene waiting for a tow truck. Thus, none of the three officers were available to begin the warrant process until 1:55 a.m. At that point, Deputy Stern returned to the office to seek a warrant. Around that same time, hospital staff notified Deputy Wacker that Trousil would be airlifted to St. Cloud Hospital in 15 to 20 minutes. Deputy Wacker also believed that Trousil might be taken to a different hospital after St. Cloud because of the severity of his injuries. Notice of the airlift gave the officers only 15 to 20 minutes to seek a warrant. Additionally, over an hour and a half passed between the time of the accident and the administering of the blood draw. To satisfy Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5) (2014), the blood draw had to be administered within two hours of driving."

"Because exigent circumstances absolved the officers of the warrant requirement in this case, the district court did not err in denying Trousil's motion to suppress the results of the alcohol-concentration test obtained from a warrantless blood draw."

Moral Of The Story:  If you have been injured and are in the hospital, force the police to get a warrant by not allowing the doctors to move you to a different location.



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