Monday, March 26, 2018

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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Dean (Decided March 26, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that, once again, if the police observe ANY traffic violation, the courts are going to uphold the stop.

In Dean, a state trooper witnessed appellant James Byron Dean's car make a wide left turn and straddle a lane divider line for up to 80 feet. The trooper stopped the car and soon suspected Dean was under the influence of alcohol. The trooper requested Dean perform field sobriety tests and that he take a preliminary breath test. Dean agreed, but failed the field sobriety tests and the preliminary breath test showed Dean had an alcohol concentration of 0.15. The trooper arrested Dean and informed him that he must submit to a chemical test. Dean refused. Dean was ultimately charged with a DWI and refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Mr. Dean moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing that the initial stop of his motor vehicle was illegal.  The district court denied the motion and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the district court, noting:

"Minnesota Statutes section 169.18, subdivision 7(a), discusses improperly crossing over traffic lanes. This statute provides:
When any roadway has been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic, the following rules, in addition to all others consistent herewith, shall apply:
(a) A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first ascertained that such movement can be made with safety."

"In Kruse, this court concluded that lanes encompass the area between the markings delineating traffic, but not the markings themselves. Kruse v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 906 N.W.2d 554, 558 (Minn. App. 2018). As a result 'driving on the markings constitutes movement from a lane and a potential violation of the statute.' Id. This court concluded that driving on the far-right solid-white line for an unspecified amount of time, but not crossing over it, provided reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 169.18, subdivision 7(a), because it meant the defendant 'moved from his lane of traffic.' Kruse, 906 N.W.2d at 560."

"Our recent decision in Kruse dictates the outcome of this case as well. Like Kruse, the record shows that Dean improperly moved out of his lane of traffic. Testimony showed that Dean made a left-hand turn onto Second Street, which is a four-lane road, two lanes going in each direction. When he turned into the left westbound lane, the right side of his vehicle drove over the lane divider by about six inches, for approximately 60 to 80 feet. With this evidence, the district court's finding that Dean straddled both westbound lanes is not clearly erroneous. And by going over the line dividing the two westbound lanes, Dean moved from his lane of traffic, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 169.18, subdivision 7(a), and the trooper had an objectively reasonable basis to believe a traffic violation occurred. See Kruse, 906 N.W.2d at 558."

Moral Of The Story: It is always important to stay in bounds!



If you or a loved one are facing 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 and DUI questions.


Monday, March 19, 2018

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 State v. Rodriguez (Decided March 19, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if you are convicted of a DWI, the appellate court will rarely, if ever, reverse on a claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

In Rodriguez, Deputy Robbins of the Steele County Sheriff's Department saw the Defendant driving a car in Owatonna.  Deputy Robbins ran Rodriguez's driver's license and saw that it had been cancelled. After Rodriguez pulled his car to the side of the road, Deputy Robbins placed him under arrest for driving after cancellation.  Robbins placed Rodriguez in the squad car and smelled the odor of alcohol on his breath. After a short time in the back of the squad car, Rodriguez began to antagonize the deputy.

Robbins placed Rodriguez in the squad car and smelled the odor of alcohol on his breath. After a short time in the back of the squad car, Rodriguez began to antagonize the deputy.

Once Deputy Robbins arrived at the detention center, he asked Rodriguez to perform field sobriety tests. Rodriguez refused. Deputy Robbins explained at trial that at that point Rodriguez was also under arrest for DWI. Deputy Robbins based that decision on the odor of alcohol on Rodriguez's breath, Rodriguez's belligerent attitude, and Rodriguez's refusal to perform field sobriety tests. Deputy Robbins read Rodriguez the implied-consent advisory, and Rodriguez asked repeatedly if he was being ordered to submit to a chemical test. Deputy Robbins explained that it was Rodriguez's decision whether or not to submit to the test. After Rodriguez continued to ask whether he was being ordered to submit, Deputy Robbins told Rodriguez that he was considering him to have refused the test. 

Mr. Rodriguez was charged with DWI-test refusal and driving after cancellation and was subsequently convicted of both charges by a jury.  On appeal, Mr. Rodriguez argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that deputy Robbins had probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence, an element of the refusal crime.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the contention stating:

"When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence after conviction, this court reviews the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict. State v. Scanlon, 719 NW.2d 674, 687 (Minn. 2006). It is a crime for a person to refuse to submit to a chemical test when an officer has probable cause to believe that the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and the person is arrested for DWI."

"When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence after conviction, this court reviews the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict. State v. Scanlon, 719 NW.2d 674, 687 (Minn. 2006). It is a crime for a person to refuse to submit to a chemical test when an officer has probable cause to believe that the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and the person is arrested for DWI."

"Deputy Robbins testified that he believed Rodriguez was intoxicated because of the odor of alcohol on his breath, his belligerent attitude, and his refusal to perform field sobriety tests. We assume that the jury believed Deputy Robbins' testimony. See State v. Moore, 438 NW.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). Deputy Robbins needed only one objective indication of intoxication to believe that Rodriguez was under the influence of alcohol, but he cited three, and no evidence contradicted his testimony.The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Deputy Robbins had probable cause to believe that Rodriguez had been operating a motor vehicle while impaired."


The problem I have with the court's language is that it is only true that the police need a single objective indication of intoxication to have probable cause "where there has been an accident".  If there has been an accident, then the accident itself furnishes a reason to believe the person may have been impaired.  In that situation, a single additional factor of intoxication is then all you need to have probable cause to arrest. 

In the present case, there wasn't any accident. So the Appellate Court's language that a single indication of intoxication is sufficient to find probable cause is just nonsense.

Moral Of The Story:  If you go to trial, don't lose!

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