The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Taybom (Decided April 10, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the officer's failure to record in his report all of the reasons for the vehicle stop is irrelevant.
On November 21, 2019 a police officer stopped the Defendant while she was driving her vehicle on Seventh Street in St. Paul, MN. Ms. Taybom was ultimately charged with gross-misdemeanor second-degree DWI for refusing to submit to a breath test in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(1) (2018), and gross-misdemeanor third-degree DWI for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1 (2018).
At a contested omnibus hearing, Taybom moved to suppress all evidence related to the traffic stop. She argued that the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to support the stop based on any traffic infraction and specifically contended that the reason provided in the officer’s police report—passing another vehicle on the right—was not unlawful. The state opposed the motion, arguing that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying the stop based on three separate traffic violations observed by the officer: failing to yield to oncoming traffic, crossing the centerline, and passing another vehicle on the right in an unsafe manner.
At the hearing, the officer testified that he observed the following driving conduct by Taybom prior to the stop. First, Taybom’s car failed to yield to his car at a stop sign, “causing [him] to have to hit [his] brakes to stop from hitting [Taybom’s] vehicle.” Second, he saw the wheels of Taybom’s car touch the centerline of the road as he followed the car westbound on 7th Street. Third, as he continued to follow Taybom’s car, he observed her car slow down as it approached another vehicle. That vehicle was stopped at a red light. When the light turned green, Taybom’s car veered onto the right shoulder (which was also a bus stop) and “quickly accelerated” to pass the other vehicle while driving through the intersection. After observing Taybom’s car pass the other vehicle, the officer initiated the traffic stop. During his testimony, the officer acknowledged that his police report indicated only that he stopped Taybom for passing on the right and that it “failed to document” the other two alleged violations—failing to yield and crossing the centerline. But the officer testified that he “did see those other violations.”
Following the hearing, the district court issued a written order denying Tayborn’s motion to suppress. The district court determined that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop based on at least two traffic violations: Tayborn’s failure to yield to oncoming traffic and the wheels of Taybom’s vehicle touching the road’s centerline. As a result, the district court concluded that it did not need to consider whether the third potential traffic violation argued by the state— passing a vehicle on the right through an intersection—also justified the stop. But the district court noted in the fact section that the officer conducted the traffic stop “based upon [Taybom] failing to properly yield to [the officer’s] car, crossing the centerline[,] and passing the stopped car on the right through the intersection.”
On appeal, Taybom argued that the district court erred by denying her motion to suppress because the record does not show that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop based on his observation of any traffic violation. Specifically, Taybom challenged the district court’s factual finding that the officer stopped Taybom’s car based on three separate traffic violations: failing to yield, crossing the centerline, and passing another car on the right in an intersection. Taybom argued that this factual finding is clearly erroneous because the officer’s police report identified only one reason for the stop—passing another car on the right. Taybom further claimed that the district court’s reliance on the officer’s testimony regarding the two other traffic violations was clearly erroneous because the officer did not testify that he was subjectively aware of these violations prior to the stop. Taybom also challenged the district court’s implicit determination that the officer testified credibly regarding his observation of Taybom’s driving conduct. Taybom therefore urged the appellate court to conclude that the district court erred by denying Taybom’s motion to suppress based on its determination that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Taybom for failing to yield and for veering onto the centerline of the road.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court stating:
"The record supports the district court’s determination that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the traffic stop. First, video from the officer’s dashboard camera supports the district court’s findings that Taybom failed to yield to the officer, that the left-side tires of her car touched the road’s centerline, and that she passed another vehicle on the right at an intersection. In other words, the district court’s findings are supported by the evidence in the record. See Ezeka, 946 N.W.2d at 403. Second, the officer testified at the motion hearing that he “did see” all three potential violations. The district court implicitly credited that testimony, and we defer to the district court’s credibility determination. See Wilkes v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 111 N.W.2d 239, 246 (Minn. App. 2010) (“[Credibility determinations are the province of the district court.”). Third, both of the noted actions relied on by the district court were traffic infractions. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169.20, subd. 3, .18, subds. 4(4), 7(1) (2018); Anderson, 683 N.W.2d at 823 (stating that an officer’s observation of any traffic violation can form the basis for a traffic stop). We therefore conclude that the record shows an objective basis for the stop."
"We are not persuaded otherwise by Taybom’s emphasis on the officer’s failure to document two of the potential traffic violations in his police report. “An officer’s failure to articulate observed violations of law as a basis for stopping a defendant is irrelevant under an objective standard.” State v. Beall, 111 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Minn. App. 2009); see also Taylor, 965 N.W.2d at 755 n.5 (explaining that “the existence of reasonable, articulable suspicion is an ‘objective test’ and is not based on the subjective beliefs of the officer”). In Beall, a police officer initiated a traffic stop on the basis that the vehicle had a “brake light out.” 771 N.W.2d at 42. The officer also observed littering from the vehicle but did not record littering as a reason for the stop. Id. The driver argued that there was no basis for the stop because his vehicle, which had three brake lights, was still equipped with two working lights and littering was not the reason for the stop. Id. The district court agreed and suppressed the evidence from the stop. Id. This court reversed, explaining that the reasonable-suspicion standard is objective and concluding that both the inoperable brake light and the littering justified the traffic stop because both were unlawful. Id. at 44-45. With respect to the littering in particular, we emphasized that the officer observed the littering prior to the traffic stop. Id. at 45. “Therefore, even if [the officer’s] subjective basis for the stop was the nonfunctioning center brake light, the stop was also [objectively] justified based on [the officer’s] observation of littering.” Id. Applying that reasoning here, we conclude that the stop of Taybom was objectively justified based on the officer’s stated observation of two traffic violations—failure to yield and veering onto the centerline—even though the officer failed to document those violations in the police report."
Moral Of The Story: Writing things down is vastly overrated.
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