The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. McElree (Decided April 3, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that it is never a good idea to walk up to the police after you have been drinking and driving.
In McElree, police officers for the city of Jordan received an harassment complaint. The complainant, J.L., alleged that his neighbor across the street, Defendant MacElree, had parked multiple vehicles in front of J.L.’s home, including two vehicles parked on either side of J.L.’s car. J.L. alleged that the vehicles on either side of his car were parked so close that he could not get into his car. J.L. also alleged that, while parking the vehicles, MacElree threatened to “tear [J.L.] apart” and knock his teeth out. J.L. showed the officers videos taken by his doorbell camera that seemed to confirm J.L.’s allegations. The videos showed the same man, later identified as MacElree, moving at least two vehicles and parking them in front of J.L. ’s home. The timestamps on the videos reflected that MacElree drove and parked the vehicles between approximately 8:55 and 9:05 p.m.
At about 9:48 p.m., while the officers were still on the scene, MacElree and a companion approached the responding officers. The officers were standing near the parked vehicles. One of the officers noticed that MacElree “smelled strongly of alcohol.” He asked MacElree if he had been drinking. MacElree responded with an expletive, claimed that his companion had driven the vehicles, and aggressively insisted that he had not driven anything. The officer did not ask MacElree to perform any field sobriety tests because of his “agitated state.” But the officer placed MacElree under arrest for suspicion of DWI. A breath test later showed that MacElree had an alcohol concentration of 0.28.
The State charged MacElree with two counts of Second Degree DWI. MacElree filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the two DWI counts for lack of probable cause to justify his arrest. In an accompanying memorandum, MacElree argued that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for DWI because he was not driving erratically, he did not demonstrate “other physical indicia of impairment,” the officer did not administer field sobriety or breath tests before his arrest, and he could have consumed alcohol “in the interim” between moving the vehicles and interacting with the officers some time later.
The state filed a brief opposing MacElree’s motion. The state argued that the officer had probable cause to arrest MacElree for DWI because the officer observed multiple signs of impairment, including a strong odor of alcohol and MacElree’s belligerent and uncooperative demeanor. In support of its position, the state filed several exhibits including: the complaint and supplemental police reports; videos taken by J.L.’s doorbell camera; and body-worn camera videos from multiple officers on the scene. The district court received these exhibits without objection from MacElree.
The district court granted MacElree’s motion and dismissed the DWI charges. The district court acknowledged that J.L. “told the officers that he saw [MacElree] drive the vehicles across the street and [the] officers identified the person in the doorbell videos as [MacElree] driving.” But the district court went on to explain that it could not “assume that [MacElree] did not consume alcohol between the time that he parked the cars and when he encountered police.” Therefore, there was “no way to prove that [MacElree] was under the influence of alcohol at the time he operated the car[s].” On that basis, the district court determined that the officer did not have probable cause to arrest MacElree for DWI and dismissed the two DWI counts against him.
The State appealed the district court's dismissal and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the lower court stating:
"The level of proof required to establish probable cause for a warrantless arrest is “more than mere suspicion but less than the evidence necessary for conviction.” State v. Onyelobi, 879 N.W.2d 334, 343 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). In making a probable-cause determination, courts must look to “the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the police have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.” State v. Perkins, 582 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn. 1998). “The inquiry is objective, and the existence of probable cause depends on all of the facts of each individual case.” State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. 2011). Accordingly, we examine whether the district court considered all relevant facts known to the arresting officer at the time of MacElree’s arrest and whether those facts objectively establish that the officer had probable cause to arrest MacElree for DWI."
***
"The undisputed facts are sufficient to support the officer’s probable-cause determination under the applicable legal standard. The record reflects that MacElree drove at least two different vehicles near in time to when his neighbor reported being harassed, that MacElree was belligerent and generally combative with both his neighbor and police, and that the officer who arrested MacElree smelled a “strong” odor of alcohol coming from MacElree about 45 minutes after he drove the vehicles. For the following reasons, we conclude that these facts reasonably warranted the officer’s belief that MacElree drove under the influence of alcohol. See Reeves, 751 N.W.2d at 120."
First, police observed multiple signs of MacElree’s intoxication. Only one objective indication of intoxication is required to establish probable cause to believe that a person is under the influence of alcohol. Kiev, 678 N.W.2d at 678. Here, police noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from MacElree and observed his belligerent and combative behavior. See Reeves, 751 N.W.2d at 120 (identifying the odor of alcohol as an indication of intoxication); Kiev, 678 N.W.2d at 678 (identifying “an uncooperative attitude” as an indication of intoxication). Significantly, MacElree also exhibited belligerent behavior— as evidenced by the neighbor’s doorbell videos—when he shouted threats at his neighbor.
Second, the record reflects that MacElree drove two vehicles and parked them near the neighbor’s car close in time to when he was belligerent to his neighbor. But, when asked by police whether he was driving, MacElree was evasive and untruthful. He asserted that his companion had driven the vehicles instead, a claim directly contradicted by the doorbell videos showing MacElree driving and parking the vehicles in front of his neighbor’s home. And, when asked if he had been drinking, MacElree did not deny consuming alcohol but insisted that he had not been driving. Taken together, the relevant facts known to the officer—the strong smell of alcohol, the belligerent behavior, the driving of vehicles, and the untruthful and evasive responses to questions about drinking and driving—are sufficient to establish probable cause for the officer to believe that MacElree drove and parked the vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. See Costillo v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 416 N.W.2d 730, 733 (Minn. 1987) (considering defendant’s lying to police, belligerent behavior, and strong odor of alcohol, among other facts, as part of the totality of the circumstances supporting probable cause for DWI arrest).
***
"Here, the district court did not appear to properly consider whether the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of MacElree’s arrest reasonably warranted the belief that MacElree was under the influence when he drove and parked the vehicles near his neighbor’s car. See id. Instead, the district court focused on the absence of evidence as to what MacElree was doing between when the neighbor observed him driving and when the officer spoke with MacElree about 45 minutes later. As a result, the district court mistakenly concluded that the state had not established probable cause for MacElree’s arrest. But, applying the proper legal standard, the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time of MacElree’s arrest support a conclusion that the officer had probable cause to arrest MacElree for DWI, regardless of the time gap."
Moral Of The Story: If you are a mean drunk, stay home!
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis 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