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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Bjerke v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided May 9, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Court will not decide the constitutionality of the "wide turn" statute if the stop can be upheld on other grounds.

In Bjerke, the Defendant was arrested for DWI after being stopped for failing to properly stop for a stop sign and for making a wide turn in violation of Minnesota Statute § 169.19, sub. 1(a).  The criminal and license revocation hearings were combined and the Defendant moved to suppress all of the state's evidence. The Defendant argued that the sheriff's deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that Statute  169.19, subs. 1(a) was unconstitutionally vague.

The arresting officer testified that at approximately 10:45 p.m. on April 1, 2021, he observed a Chrysler 300 sedan being driven in the downtown area of Mankato where there are several bars. The deputy testified that he observed the sedan stopped at the intersection of Main Street and Second Street with the front tires of the vehicle stopped “over the crosswalk” such that the vehicle was obstructing the crosswalk. The deputy testified that the driver of the vehicle then made a wide right turn, followed by another wide right turn. According to the deputy, the vehicle crossed over the center lane divider when the driver made both right turns.

Bjerke testified that he has a Class A commercial driver’s license, which allows him to drive combination tractor/trailers. According to Bjerke, he makes wide turns “[a]ll the time” in order “to avoid anything on the curb, or a door opening, going to the right.” And Bjerke acknowledged that he made wide right turns prior to being stopped by the deputy.

The district court determined that Bjerke’s “wide turn provided an independent reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of the car.” The district court also determined that Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(a) is not unconstitutionally vague because, although the statutory phrase ‘“as close as practicable’ is imprecise,” it is “not incomprehensible.” The district court, therefore, denied Bjerke’s motion to suppress, and sustained the revocation of his driver’s license.

On Appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

Minnesota Statute §169.19, subd. 1(a) provides, "Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. When necessary to accommodate vehicle configuration, a driver is permitted to make a right turn into the farthest lane of a roadway with two or more lanes in the same direction in order to make a U-turn at a reduced conflict intersection, if it is safe to do so."

* * *

"...in State v. Morse, the supreme court considered a challenge to a traffic stop that was made after a driver made a wide turn and subsequently drifted within a traffic lane. 878 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Minn. 2016). Although there was a question as to whether the driver in Morse violated a traffic law, the supreme court upheld the legality of the stop based on the totality of the circumstances, which included (1) the squad-car video supporting the officer’s assertion that the driver’s right turn was not as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway; (2) the squad-car video showing the driver’s vehicle drifting in its lane; (3) the fact that the events occurred close to 2:00 a.m. bar closing time; (4) the fact that the driver was leaving downtown, an area with bars; and (5) the officer’s training and experience.  Id. at 502-03.

Here, the district court found that Bjerke was stopped at approximately 10:45 p.m. “in an area of Mankato where there are many bars and heavy foot traffic.” The district court also found that the deputy “credibly testified” that he observed Bjerke’s vehicle stopped over the crosswalk such that the vehicle “was obstructing the crosswalk.” And the district court found that the deputy observed Bjerke’s vehicle make two wide right turns such that the “driver’s side tires went over the lane divider and into the oncoming lane of traffic.” Finally, the district court found that “there was no evidence the ‘vehicle configuration’ was such to make a wide right turn permissible.” The record supports the district court’s findings, including Bjerke’s admission that he made two wide right turns prior to being stopped, as well as the squad-car video that shows Bjerke make two wide right-hand turns. In fact, the squad-car video shows that when Bjerke made the second wide right-hand turn, his vehicle drifted considerably into the oncoming lane of traffic. The circumstances presented here are similar to the circumstances presented in Morse, in which the supreme court upheld the legality of the stop. See 878 N.W.2d at 502. Therefore, even if Bjerke’s wide right turns did not constitute a traffic violation, we conclude that, under Morse, the totality of the circumstances provided the deputy with the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop of Bjerke’s vehicle. And because the totality of the circumstances surrounding Bjerke’s driving conduct provided a reasonable basis to stop Bjerke’s vehicle, we need not address Bjerke’s contention that Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(a) is unconstitutionally vague."

Moral Of The Story: The Courts will not address the constitutionality of a statute if the matter can be resolved on other grounds.

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

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. Jones (Decided May 2, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that one should not pull into the parking lot of a closed business late at night.

In Jones, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and challenged the validity of the initial stop of her vehicle. The arresting officer testified that around 11:00 p.m., he was following a car traveling northbound on Highway 25 when the car turned left into the parking lot of a closed business. At the next opportunity, the trooper made a U-tum and parked along the right shoulder of southbound Highway 25 to observe the car. The trooper saw the car park in the front section of the dimly lit lot, which abutted the highway. After approximately 30 seconds, he saw the car drive further into the lot and move to a darker area between two buildings where the trooper lost sight of the car. About 30 seconds later, the trooper observed the car travel back to the front section of the lot, come to a complete stop, exit the lot, and reenter Highway 25, continuing northbound. The trooper initiated a traffic stop and arrested the car’s sole occupant, later identified as Jones, after detecting signs of intoxication.

The trooper testified that he considered Jones’s driving conduct to be suspicious. The trooper testified that he became suspicious because he knew the business was closed, the lot was not well-lit, and there were other lots along the highway with much better lighting. The trooper also testified that although he considered the driver might be custodial staff or have pulled over to look at a map, he no longer thought that was the case when he observed the vehicle travel from the dimly lit front area of the lot to a darker area of the lot hidden from his view. The trooper testified that he became particularly suspicious when the vehicle moved to the dark area of the lot out of his view because the trooper knew that buses were parked in that area, and he thought it was possible that someone could be vandalizing the building, stealing tires, or engaged in drug use. 

The district court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress and on appeal, the MInnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating:

"For a stop to be supported by reasonable suspicion, there must be “specific, articulable facts” showing that the officer “had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” Id. at 842-43 (quotations omitted). The standard for reasonable suspicion is “not high,” but it requires more than “an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.2008) (quotations omitted). This standard is satisfied when the officer “observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” Id. (quotation omitted). If a seizure is not supported by reasonable suspicion, however, all evidence obtained because of the seizure must be suppressed. Diede, 795 N.W.2d at 842."

***

"The facts here are like those in Thomeczek and Olmscheid. Around 11:00 p.m., the trooper saw Jones drive into the front section of the lot of a closed business and, 30 seconds later, drive out of sight between two buildings. According to the trooper, there was no apparent reason for someone to enter the parking lot at that time of night because the business was closed. The trooper also concluded from his observations that Jones was not an employee because instead of entering the business, she proceeded to drive into the dimly lit area between the two buildings. The trooper articulated that he suspected Jones of vandalism, tire theft, or taking drugs when she drove from the front parking lot to the darker area of the parking lot specifically based on his knowledge that tire thefts had occurred at “dealership lots here,” and in his experience, “people do[] drugs ... in some empty lots.” Like the behaviors of the drivers in Thomeczek and Olmscheid, Jones’s conduct caused the trooper to form a reasonable belief that she could be engaged in criminal activity."

Moral Of The Story: Don't stop at any business that is not open 24 hours!

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