The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Mattingly (Decided February 6, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands, once again, for the proposition that a vehicle must travel within its lane.
In Mattingly, the Defendant was driving a pickup truck that was towing a trailer containing an ATV. Carlton County Deputy Sheriff David Radzak was following the vehicle when the deputy saw the truck signal a right turn, slow down, and cross the fog line separating the lane of travel and the right shoulder. He watched the truck continue slowly down the shoulder for about 20 seconds. Deputy Radzak activated his squad car’s flashing red and blue overhead lights and pulled onto the shoulder behind the truck.
Mr. Mattingly was subsequently arrested and charged with drunk driving. His attorney challenged the stop arguing the deputy did not have the constitutional authority to stop the vehicle.
The District Court denied the defense motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:
"We are unpersuaded by Mattingly’s contention that Deputy Radzak lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him...An officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop if he sees a driver commit a traffic violation. State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Minn. 2004)...we are satisfied that Deputy Radzak had reasonable suspicion to stop Mattingly’s truck.
"Minnesota motorists may drive only on the roadway and may not cross the fog line marking the lane of travel. Soucie v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 957 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2021). They may not drive on the shoulder except in circumstances not relevant here: “Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway ...” Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 1 (2020). A “roadway” includes only “that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder.” Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 68 (2020). The legislature has carved out exceptions to the prohibition against driving on the shoulder, such as to perform a U-tum or to operate certain buses. Minn. Stat. §§ 169.19, subd. 2, .306 (2020). By leaving the roadway and operating on the shoulder in a manner that meets no statutory exception, Mattingly engaged in driving conduct for which a police officer could temporarily seize him by stopping his truck."
"We are not persuaded otherwise by Mattingly’s assertion at oral argument that an emergency exception applies. He relies on Minnesota Statutes section 169.18, subdivision 7(1) (2020), but his reliance is misplaced. That subdivision applies to roadways that have “been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic” and prohibits a driver from leaving his lane until he “first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety." Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7. This lane-change statute does not expressly or implicitly authorize a motorist to operate his vehicle on the shoulder for safety reasons. Although we need not address the district court’s motorist-assistance rationale to justify the deputy’s encounter with Mattingly, we observe that, if an emergency exception does exist and apply here because Mattingly was experiencing a safety issue, the deputy had a reason to activate his emergency lights wholly apart from reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense."
Moral Of The Story: Stay in your lane!
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment