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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Willis v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided November 19, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if the police read a misleading advisory to a person under arrest for DWI, the arrestee must testify he or she relied on the misleading advisory in order to establish a due process violation.

These cases keep coming up over and over in the Court of Appeals and the reason is this:  It used to be, under Olinger v. Commissioner of Public Safety, that all the defense had to show was that the advisory was misleading in order to establish a due process violation. It did not matter if the defendant testified or not. And it did not matter if the defendant submitted to testing or not. But all that has changed under the recent Minnesota Supreme Court cases of Morehouse and Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety.

In Morehouse and Johnson, the Supreme Court held that in order to establish a due process violation, the Defendant must establish three things:

(1) That the person whose license was revoked submitted to a breath, blood or urine test;
(2) The person prejudicially relied on the implied consent advisory in deciding to undergo testing; and 
(3) The implied consent advisory did not accurately inform the person of the legal consequences of refusing to submit to testing.

Since everyone was relying on Olinger, no attorney was having their Minnesota DWI client testify that they relied upon what they were told when the police read the Minnesota Implied Consent Advisory. And so now, all those Olinger-type cases are getting reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. AARRGH!!

If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, 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DWI Case Of The Week is Robinson v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided June 18, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the current Court will affirm just about any vehicle stop.

In Robinson, Officer Donahue of the Edina Police Department was on routine patrol in the area of Edina High School and Valley View Middle School. At approximately 12:55 a.m., while conducting a directed patrol of the area, Officer Donahue pulled into the east entrance of the parking lot to the west of Valley View Middle School. As he entered the parking lot, Officer Donahue observed a dark passenger car drive by the western edge of the parking lot the officer had just entered, and drive out the west entrance. The vehicle's lights were on, and the road the vehicle was driving on encircles the schools and connects all of the school parking lots. Officer Donahue testified that "there was a large construction site near that part of the school where the vehicle came out.

At the time Officer Donahue saw the vehicle, there were no other cars in the area and the lights in the high school were off; the school appeared closed. Officer Donahue testified that he found the vehicle's presence suspicious because it was late, the high school was closed, and there was a construction site at the high school near where the vehicle was located. Officer Donahue has worked for the Edina Police Department for about two years and has been a licensed peace officer in Minnesota for about nine years, and in Officer Donahue's training and experience, "construction sites are often sought out by thieves for theft and damage-related crimes." The district court found Officer Donahue's testimony credible.

After observing the vehicle, Officer Donahue followed it. Officer Donahue saw the vehicle cross Valley View Road onto Chapel Lane, where he caught up to it and ran a license plate check, which showed that a lease company owned the vehicle and that the lessee lived on the 5500 block of Goya Lane. Goya Lane is approximately one mile north of Edina High School.

Officer Donahue continued following the vehicle and thought that the route taken by the vehicle was suspicious because it was not the most direct route from the school to the address on Goya Lane. Robinson crossed Valley View Road, drove along several residential streets to the south of Valley View Road, and then turned onto Valley View Road. Officer Donahue initiated a traffic stop on Valley View Road, the vehicle stopped almost immediately, and Officer Donahue identified Robinson as the driver. From when Officer Donahue first observed the vehicle, until he stopped it on Valley View Road, he did not observe any traffic or equipment violations, inappropriate, unusual, or unlawful driving, and found no outstanding warrants.

Mr. Robinson was subsequently arrested for DWI and tested at .10% BAC at the police station.  Mr Robinson filed a challenge to the license revocation alleging the officer did not have a sufficient basis for the stop.  The district court upheld the revocation and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, stating:

"Officer Donahue had a particularized and objective basis to stop Robinson. Robinson was driving on school grounds around 1:00 a.m., near a construction site at the high school, when the school was closed. He was driving on a road that encircled both schools and does not provide access to anywhere other than the schools, their parking lots, and the construction site at the high school—the road is more akin to a driveway than to a public thru-street. And when Robinson drove out of the school area, he drove across a main road, through several residential roads, only to return to the main road—which he could have turned directly on to as he left the school area. Standing alone, each individual fact may not be sufficient to support reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. But viewed together, and through the eyes of Officer Donahue's experience and training that construction sites are often targeted for theft and vandalism crimes, Officer Donahue had a particularized and objective basis for an investigatory stop."

Yikes!

Moral Of The Story:  If you have been drinking, do not go to school!

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

Minneapolis 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. Horn (Decided June 11, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police cannot ask for consent to search your vehicle if the search is unrelated to the traffic stop. 

In Horn, Minnesota State Patrol Sergeant Thostenson observed Mr. Horn driving an automobile and stopped him because he was not wearing a seatbelt. Sergeant Thostenson asked Horn for proof of insurance. Horn gave Sergeant Thostenson an expired insurance card and did not look for any other proof of insurance in his vehicle. Sergeant Thostenson thought this behavior was odd and testified that some people avoid opening areas where insurance cards are normally kept because they have contraband or weapons in those areas. Sergeant Thostenson observed that Horn avoided eye contact, appeared excessively nervous, talked very fast and was slow to respond to some questions. Sergeant Thostenson also smelled a faint odor of marijuana coming from Horn's vehicle.

Sergeant Thostenson returned to his squad car, printed a ticket for the seatbelt violation, returned to Horn's car, and asked Horn to step out of his vehicle. Sergeant Thostenson noticed that Horn's front teeth were discolored and decaying. He testified that such conditions indicated drug use. Sergeant Thostenson explained the seatbelt citation to Horn, handed Horn the ticket, and asked Horn if he had any questions before the sergeant let him go. Horn responded, "No." Sergeant Thostenson then asked Horn if he could take a quick look in Horn's vehicle. Horn agreed to the ensuing vehicle search.

During the search of Horn's vehicle, Sergeant Thostenson found a zippered container, which he recognized as the type of container commonly used for drugs and paraphernalia. He opened the container and found a pipe and methamphetamine inside. Horn admitted that he had used methamphetamine earlier that morning. Horn agreed to perform field sobriety tests and performed poorly on the tests. Sergeant Thostenson arrested Horn, obtained a search warrant to test his blood, and the blood sample was positive for methamphetamine.

Mr. Horn was charged with DWI and possession of a controlled substance.  The defense moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing that Sergeant Thostenson's incremental intrusion of asking to search Horn's vehicle was unrelated to the purpose of the stop for failure to wear a seatbelt and that the circumstances did not otherwise justify the request to search the vehicle. Horn therefore argued that the evidence obtained as a result of the search should be suppressed.

At the suppression hearing, Sergeant Thostenson admitted that after he handed Horn the seatbelt-violation ticket, Horn was free to go, but that he nonetheless asked to search Horn's car after he gave Horn the ticket.  

The district court denied Horn's motion to suppress, concluding that "the odor of marijuana along with the other factors was sufficient to justify" the trooper's request to search the vehicle.  On appeal, however, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court  noting:

"When a search is conducted pursuant to consent . . . , neither probable cause nor a warrant is required." State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 519 (Minn. 1999). However, a "suspect's consent, taken alone, is insufficient to permit expansion of a routine traffic stop; the police officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of further criminal activity in order to request to expand the stop.   State v. Volkman, 675 N.W.2d 337, 341 (Minn. App. 2004)."

"Horn contends that any suspicions that might have justified the request to search his vehicle were dispelled prior to the request. He notes that Sergeant Thostenson "had completed the initial stop and immediately before asking to search the car, he had admittedly concluded that Horn was 'free to go.' Horn therefore argues that 'regardless of anything [Sergeant Thostenson] may have observed prior to handing [him] the ticket, when he asked to search the car, no reasonable suspicion remained.' Horn concludes that "because the search of [his] car was invalid, the fruits of the search and all related evidence must be suppressed."

The Minnesota Court of Appeals justifiably ruled in favor of the Defendant, stating:

"We would have a difficult time concluding that Sergeant Thostenson articulated constitutionally adequate support for his request to search Horn's vehicle given his testimony that Horn was free to go before the request. Sergeant Thostenson's agreement that Horn was no longer seized when he asked to search Horn's vehicle significantly undercuts the state's argument that the trooper articulated reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified the request to search. In our view, this record does not support a conclusion that Sergeant Thostenson articulated reasonable suspicion justifying his request to search Horn's vehicle. We therefore hold that the search was unconstitutional and reverse the district court's order denying Horn's motion to suppress."

Moral Of The Story:  Never, ever, ever consent to a search! Ever!!

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.