The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Went (Decided October 29, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that stopping by the side of the road and then attempting to drive away does not justify a seizure by the police. Well duh, except the prosecutor did not know that.
In Wento, the Defendant was driving southbound on Highway 53 in Koochiching County, Minnesota. A Minnesota State Trooper was traveling northbound along the same highway when he saw Wento’s car. He observed no traffic violations as he passed her, but waited until Wento’s car was out of sight before turning around to follow her. Down the highway, Wento had pulled off to the side of the road. As the trooper pulled up behind her car, he saw the passenger door open and someone crouched beside it. The unidentified person got back into the car and closed the door, and the car pulled away from the side of the road. The trooper activated his squad car lights and stopped Wento’s car.
The trooper walked up to Wento’s car to talk with her. He learned that Wento had pulled to the side of the road because her passenger had to vomit. The trooper could smell a moderate odor of alcohol and noticed that Wento slurred her words as she spoke. Wento admitted to having a couple beers earlier in the day, and the trooper ordered her out of the car to do field sobriety tests. After showing various indicators of being impaired and failing the preliminary breath test, Wento was arrested and later consented to a breath test. Her alcohol concentration was above the legal limit and she was charged with fourth-degree driving while impaired in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.27, subd. 1 (2016) and operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration of .08 in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(5) (2016). Wento filed a motion to dismiss the charges for lack of probable cause and a motion to suppress all evidence seized.
At the motion hearing, the trooper testified that he stopped Wento’s vehicle to perform a welfare check. The district court found that instead he initiated a traffic stop when he activated his lights and had no reasonable articulable suspicion for such a seizure. Finding that all evidence seized was in violation of Wento’s constitutional rights because the trooper did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate a stop, the district court granted Wento’s motion to dismiss the case for lack of probable cause.
The State appealed the District Court's ruling, but the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court noting:
"A seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 781 (Minn 1993) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16 (1968)). To determine if a seizure has taken place, this court looks to “whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe that she was not free to leave.” State v. Lopez, 698 N.W.2d 18, 21 (Minn. App. 2005). This analysis depends on the totality of the circumstances. Id.; see also E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d at 783."
"In this case, the trooper testified at the motion hearing that he did not activate his emergency lights when he pulled up behind Wento’s car, but instead waited until she “started driving away.” It is generally established that a seizure occurs when a police officer stops a vehicle. See State v. Bergerson, 659 N.W.2d 791, 795 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding that a “driver confronted with a trailing squad car with flashing red lights inevitably feels duty bound to submit to this show of authority by pulling over”); see also Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1396 (1979). The state relies on State v. Hanson, which holds that activating squad lights alone does not constitute a seizure on an already stopped vehicle and can instead be construed by a reasonable person as a welfare check. 504 N.W.2d 219, 220 (Minn. 1993). In this case, though, Wento was not parked on the side of the road and was instead driving away from the trooper when he activated his emergency lights. Unlike a welfare check, the use of emergency lights signaled to Wento “that the officer [was] attempting to seize [her] for investigative purposes.” Id. The state provides no argument to counter the trooper’s testimony at the hearing: that he activated his lights after Wento pulled away from the side of the road. Therefore, because a reasonable person would feel restrained in this situation, the district court did not err in finding the seizure took place when the trooper activated his lights."
"Here, the trooper pulled up behind Wento’s car and noticed the passenger’s door was open with someone crouched outside. The passenger returned to the car and closed the door, and the car pulled away. Only after initiating the stop did the trooper learn that the passenger had been throwing up. The trooper testified at the hearing that he did not “know what [was] happening in that vehicle,” indicating that he was not motivated by the need to render aid. Additionally, he was not called to this scene to check on anyone’s wellbeing. See Lopez, 698 N.W.2d at 23 (noting that “an officer responding to a call to investigate someone unconscious or sleeping in a vehicle is justified in investigating the welfare of that individual”). Further, a reasonable person under these circumstances would not believe an emergency existed when a vehicle briefly pulled off to the side of the road, then eventually drove away with no traffic violations. Because the trooper was not reasonably motivated by the need to render assistance and no reasonable person would believe an emergency existed, the emergency-aid exception does not apply and the stop was constitutionally unreasonable."
Moral Of The Story: If you have to stop by the side of the road, make it short!
Moral Of The Story: If you have to stop by the side of the road, make it short!
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI or are facing the DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and forfeiture questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment