The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Dolby (Decided March 6, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a person can commit the crime of DWI refusal to submit to testing if their conduct tends to frustrate the process.
In Dolby, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and was subsequently charged with Second Degree Refusal to submit to testing. The Defendant waived his right to a jury trial and had the matter decided by a district court judge. The district court found the Defendant guilty of DWI refusal. On appeal, the Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, noting:
"The officer then read Doby the breath-test advisory form. Doby stated that he did not understand and needed an interpreter. But at trial, Doby testified that he grew up in St. Paul and spoke English as his native language. He explained that when he asked for an interpreter, he “felt like [he] needed a mediator” to help him understand what was happening. The breath-test advisory began at 1:36 a.m. and finished at 1:41 a.m., when the officer decided to treat Doby’s actions as a refusal to test. The officer testified that Doby never said he would take the test, while Doby testified that he never refused to cooperate with the test."
***
"The implied-consent statute provides that a driver may be obligated to submit to a chemical test of their blood, breath, or urine when an officer has probable cause to believe the driver has been operating a vehicle while intoxicated and the driver has been lawfully placed under arrest for driving while intoxicated. Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 1(a), (b)(1) (2018). It is a crime to refuse to submit to this chemical test. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2018). When the officer requests that the driver perform the test, the driver must be informed of specific information set out in the implied-consent statute. Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2 (2018). The statute does not state that verbal refusal is required. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(1). Rather, circumstantial evidence, such as the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances, can establish refusal without a direct statement of unwillingness. Ferrier, 792 N.W.2d at 102. An individual’s actions that completely frustrate the implied-consent procedure constitute test refusal. State v. Collins, 655 N.W.2d 652, 658 (Minn. App. 2003)."
"Here, the district court found that the state proved that Doby constantly interrupted the officer during the reading of the implied-consent advisory, asked for an interpreter three times but had no need for an interpreter, and refused to respond three times when the officer asked if Doby wanted an attorney. Further, the district court found that when the officer asked Doby if he would take a breath test, Doby indicated that he needed an interpreter and that he did not understand, but never said yes or no. Doby argues that these circumstances support the alternative rational hypothesis that he did not refuse the test because he was not given enough time to consider his options and the officer did not sufficiently explain the test requirement. We disagree."
"Doby’s actions were inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than that he intended to frustrate the implied-consent procedure. There is no evidence in the record other than Doby’s testimony that he ever affirmatively indicated a willingness to take the test. The officer read the required advisory to Doby and gave him time to decide before treating Doby’s behavior as a refusal, and the body-camera footage does not show Doby asking for additional time. These actions demonstrate nothing other than an actual unwillingness to submit to chemical testing."
"Still, Doby argues that the officer did not give him enough time to process the implied-consent advisory and make an informed decision, and that he was not refusing. Rather, he asserts that he was asking for more time to make his decision. But the statute includes no minimum time period for giving the advisory; it only includes the information that an officer must convey to a person at the time of the breath test. Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2. And an “officer is not required to wait for the driver to decide at his convenience whether or not he will submit to testing.” Gabrick v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 393 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that a reasonably prompt decision whether the driver will take the test aligns with the purpose of the statute to protect the public from the hazards of intoxicated drivers). Furthermore, the officer asked Doby three times if he would submit to a test, and we have held that refusing to reply after three implied-consent advisories frustrates the testing process. Busch v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 614 N.W.2d 256, 257, 260 (Minn. App. 2000)."
"Finally, Doby posits that because his conduct was not persistent, extreme, offensive, and abusive from beginning to end, his conduct did not frustrate the testing process. But we have held that a simple refusal to answer the question “will you take the breath test” after it is asked once is enough to constitute a refusal to test. Gabrick, 393 N.W.2d at 25. Doby’s attempt to move the bar so that his conduct clears it is unavailing."
Moral Of The Story: Actions speak louder than words.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment