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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Johnson (Decided October 28, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that police officers are very suspicious people.

In Johnson, the Defendant was stopped because his pickup had a non-functioning tail-light.  The deputy’s body camera recorded the events following the traffic stop. The deputy observed the Defendant exhibiting erratic behaviors and acting nervous. Specifically, the Defendant was making “weird movements” inside of his truck and looking away. The deputy characterized these nervous behaviors to be beyond those expected to occur during a routine traffic stop.

From a distance of less than five feet, the deputy saw that Defendant's pupils were abnormally constricted. The deputy directed his flashlight into the truck, but moved the light away from Defendant's face and confirmed Defendant's pupils were still constricted when the light was absent, suggesting to the deputy that Defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance.

After having the Defendant perform some field sobriety tests, the deputy placed Defendant under arrest and obtained a search warrant to obtain a sample of the Defendant's blood or urine.  The Defendant refused to submit to testing and was charged with DWI Refusal.

The Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the charge and suppress all of the evidence obtained after the initial stop. The Defendant argued that the officer illegally expanded the traffic stop into an investigation of DWI without sufficient cause to do so.

The District Court denied the Defendant's motions and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, noting:

"...an officer may expand a traffic stop if the incremental intrusion is tied to and justified by “(1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry. State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 365 (Minn. 2004). Reasonable, articulable suspicion requires that the officer identify “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968). The reasonable, articulable suspicion standard is satisfied when an officer observes conduct that leads him to reasonably conclude, based on his experience, that “criminal activity may be afoot.” 

***

"The deputy observed that appellant exhibited signs of being under the influence of a controlled substance. Specifically, appellant exhibited erratic behaviors, acted very nervous, moved around his vehicle, did not make eye contact, and had abnormally constricted pupils. While nervousness alone is not sufficient to support the expansion of a stop, nervousness coupled with other “particularized and objective facts” may provide reasonable articulable suspicion. State v. Syhavong, 661 N.W.2d 278, 282 (Minn. App. 2003). Moreover, signs of being under the influence of a controlled substance are considered and may provide a police officer with specific and articulable facts to support an expansion of the stop. See State v. Hegstrom, 543 N.W.2d 698, 702 (Minn. App. 1996) (considering “the observed symptoms of some type of intoxication, particularly the severely constricted pupils” as a factor in establishing probable cause to believe driver was under the influence of a controlled substance). Appellant’s nervousness coupled with his constricted pupils, a recognized sign of intoxication, formed a reasonable basis for the deputy to believe appellant was under the influence of a controlled substance, and justified his expansion of the scope of the traffic stop."

Moral Of The Story:  When you get stopped by someone with a gun, try to stay calm.

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 Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

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 Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided October 21, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which, once again, stands for the proposition that if the Data Master Breath Testing machine prints a breath test result at or above the legal limit, the uncertainty of measurement inherent in said machine is not "relevant".

In Olson, the Petitioner was arrested for a Minnesota DWI and he tested at .16% BAC on the Data Master Breath testing machine.  Mr. Olson filed a challenge to the revocation of his license and notified the Commissioner of Public Safety that he intended to offer the testimony of a “breath testing expert” from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, who would “testify regarding the foundational reliability of the breath test result” and “the uncertainty of measurement values that apply to these breath test results.” The next day, the commissioner filed a motion in limine to exclude Olson’s evidence concerning uncertainty of measurement on the ground that the evidence is irrelevant.

The district court subsequently filed an order in which it granted the commissioner’s motion in limine and sustained the revocation of Olson’s driver’s license. The district court focused on the admissibility of Olson’s evidence concerning uncertainty of measurement. The district court stated that the terms “margin of error” and “uncertainty of measurement” describe the same concept and noted, “While a petitioner may challenge the actual administration of a breath test, a petitioner may not challenge the general reliability of the breath test, whether via margin of error, uncertainty of measurement, or another similar statistical method.”

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"Evidence consisting of “the results of a breath test” is, as a matter of law, “admissible in evidence without antecedent expert testimony that an infrared or other approved breath-testing instrument provides a trustworthy and reliable measure of the alcohol in the breath,” so long as the breath test was “performed by a person who has been fully trained in the use of an infrared or other approved breath-testing instrument . . . pursuant to training given or approved by the commissioner of public safety or the commissioner’s acting agent.” Minn. Stat. § 634.16 (2018); see also In re Source Code, 816 N.W.2d at 528 n.3; State v. Norgaard, 899 N.W.2d 205, 207-08 (Minn App. 2017); State v. Ards, 816 N.W.2d 679, 685 (Minn. App. 2012). “But section 634.16’s presumption of reliability may be challenged in a proceeding under section 169A.53, subdivision 3(b)(10), which specifically permits a driver to challenge the reliability and accuracy of his or her test results.” In re Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 711 (Minn. 2007); see also State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677, 685 n.4 (Minn. 2009)."

***

Olson "sought to prove that the breath-test results were not accurately evaluated on the ground that the DataMaster instrument’s measurements of the alcohol content of his breath samples was subject to a degree of uncertainty. Olson contends that his proffered evidence was relevant because it would have shed light on the 'actual true range' of the alcohol concentration of his breath samples."

The Court of Appeals rejected the proffered evidence as not "relevant" as there are a long line of cases which state that  “Minn. Stat. § 169.123 (1982), does not require the Commissioner of Public Safety to prove an alcohol concentration of. 10 within an alleged margin for potential error.” Grund, 359 N.W.2d at 653. A later opinion explained the rationale for that statement:

Under Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 4 (1982), the Commissioner must revoke a person’s license when “the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of. 10 or more.” The statute clearly requires a concentration of. 10—not. 10 plus or minus an error factor. And, Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 6(3) (1982), expressly limits the issue to be raised at a hearing to whether “the test results indicate an alcohol concentration of .10 or more at the time of testing,” not whether or not the reading was . 10, coupled with some margin of error."

***

"In light of the above-described caselaw, as well as the fact that both of the Datamaster’s two measurements exceed the legal threshold, the district court did not abuse its discretion by reasoning that Olson’s proffered evidence was not relevant to the issue to be decided at the implied-consent hearing."

Moral Of The Story:  When it comes to breath testing, close enough is good enough.

If you or a loved one have been charged with 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 and DUI questions.