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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Green (Decided June 9, 2025, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which, once again, stands for the proposition that if the officer has probable cause to arrest for DWI, it constitutes a gross misdemeanor to refuse to submit to evidentiary testing.

In Green, a Hennepin County Sheriff's deputy stopped a black Cadillac for traveling 51 mph in a 25 mph zone.  The Cadillac driver told the officer she was trying to keep up with her sister, who was driving an Audi and who had also pulled over when the Cadillac was stopped.

The Deputy then spoke to the Defendant and he observed Ms. Green was speaking slowly, appeared lethargic and had slurred speech. He also noted the odor of alcohol.

The deputy had the Defendant get out of the vehicle and perform three field sobriety tests: the eye gaze nystagmus test; the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand test. Ms Green refused to submit to a preliminary breath test and was arrested for DWI.

The Defendant subsequently refused to submit to an evidentiary breath test at the police station and was charged with gross misdemeanor DWI refusal.  The case went to a jury trial and the Defendant was found guilty of DWI refusal.

On appeal, the Defendant claimed the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction but the Court of Appeals disagreed, noting:

"When a conviction is supported by direct evidence, “we limit our review to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, was sufficient to permit the jurors to reach the verdict which they did.” Horst, 880 N.W.2d at 40 (quotation omitted). We assume “that the fact-finder disbelieved any evidence that conflicted with the verdict.” Id."

***

"A person may be required to submit to a chemical test when the “officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired.” State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted)."

"To prove that the deputy here had probable cause to believe that Green was driving while impaired, the state presented evidence of the officer’s direct observations of Green’s erratic driving and behavior. He first observed Green and her sister speeding (going 51 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone) and changing lanes at approximately 2:00 a.m., right after bar’s have typically closed in Minneapolis. Next, as the deputy spoke with Green he observed lethargy, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. The state also introduced BWC footage supporting the deputy’s testimony about Green. And the deputy testified that, based on his training and experience, Green’s behavior was indicative of impairment. All of this evidence is direct evidence of the totality of the facts and circumstances known to the officers, and, if true, proves without inference that there was probable cause to believe Green was driving while impaired. See Olson, 887 N.W.2d at 700 (concluding that an officer’s direct observations of indicia of impairment and testimony based on those observations are direct evidence of impairment)."

"...we acknowledge that some of the deputy’s testimony about Green’s performance on the field sobriety tests is not corroborated by the BWC footage. For example, according to the deputy, Green performed poorly on the one-leg stand test by placing her foot down, swaying while balancing, and using her hands for balance. But the BWC footage does not show any of this. In fact, the BWC footage shows that Green maintained her balance for approximately 30 seconds before she began to sway. However, Green can be heard on the BWC footage slurring her words as she is counting, and the officer’s testimony regarding the walk-and-tum test is consistent with what is depicted in the BWC footage. Additionally, the deputy observed multiple indicia of impairment, and testified that, based on his training and experience, the erratic driving behavior exhibited by Green, coupled with the deputy’s observations of Green during the field sobriety tests, led the deputy to believe that she was impaired."

"Applying the direct-evidence standard and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that law enforcement had probable cause to believe that Green was driving while impaired. The deputy observed erratic and high-speed driving, as well as physical indicia of impairment including observed lethargy, slurred speech, and an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. The state introduced BWC footage that supports these observations. We have held that driving conduct and physical indicia similar to those exhibited by Green can support probable cause of intoxication. See Otto, 924 N.W.2d at 661 (holding that “[e]rratic driving and failing to observe traffic laws can be indicia of intoxication . . . and doing so at a time of day when drinking is often found to be involved” (1:20 a.m. on Saturday morning)); State v. Driscoll, 427 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Minn. App. 1988) (affirming probable cause where officer noted, among other things, odor of alcohol and failing to follow directions during field sobriety test)"

Moral Of The Story: A refusal to submit to testing is easier to prove than the validity of an evidentiary breath test. So don't refuse to submit to testing.

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. Brehmer (Decided April 28, 2025, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that even if the defendant was arrested before the police had probable cause, the evidence obtained was still admissible under the "inevitable-discovery" rule.

In Brehmer, the police saw the Defendant was driving the wrong way down a one-way street.  Defendant then hit his brakes and drove backwards into a parking lot.  The police activated their emergency lights to perform a traffic stop.  As the officers approached the Defendant's vehicle, one of the officers shouted, "Watch out. Watch out."

The officers exited the squad car with their firearms drawn and yelled at Brehmer to put his hands up. Brehmer moved his hands up and down several times before raising both hands, with one hand outside of the car window. One officer observed that Brehmer made “a lot of furtive movements . . . with the hands kind of up, down, side to side,” and specifically noted that he “reach[ed] to the right side.” 

One of the officers opened the driver-side door and pulled Brehmer from the car. The officers both pushed Brehmer to the ground face down and cuffed his hands behind his back. While Brehmer was handcuffed on the ground, one of the officers patted Brehmer’s pockets and pulled up his shirt to reveal his waistband. The officer then stood Brehmer up while handcuffed and brought him over to the squad car. The officers pat-frisked Brehmer next to the squad car, reaching into his front pants pocket and removing his wallet. During the frisk, one of the officers felt an object near Brehmer’s “right buttock area in his underwear.” He asked Brehmer what the object was, and Brehmer replied that it was “just a pipe.” The other officer removed a glass pipe from Brehmer’s underwear and, after inspecting it, concluded that it was a drug pipe containing drug residue.

One of the officers then ran information from Brehmer’s driver’s license in the police database and, after Brehmer stated that he did not have a license, confirmed that Brehmer’s license was suspended. The officer stated that he wanted to do “one more frisk search” before putting Brehmer in the back of the squad car. The officer reached into Brehmer’s front and back pockets and pat-frisked Brehmer’s body. The officer then placed Brehmer, still handcuffed, in the back of the squad car. During this time, the other officer observed that Brehmer exhibited several indicia of drug use, including pinpoint pupils, bloodshot eyes, sweating, and fast head movements. Officers also searched Brehmer’s car and found whiskey plates for the car.

One of the officers applied for and received a search warrant for Brehmer’s blood or urine for chemical testing. Officers obtained a urine sample from Brehmer that tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine.

The State of Minnesota charged Brehmer with felony DWI pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7) (2020). Brehmer moved to suppress evidence including the search of his person and car, his statements to the officers on the scene, and the chemical test of his urine, arguing that the police violated his right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. 

The District Court denied the motion to suppress and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed stating:

"The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const, amend. IV; Minn. Const, art. I, § 10. And unless an exception applies, evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure must be suppressed. State v. Bradley, 908 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Minn. App. 2018). One such exception is the inevitable-discovery doctrine, which permits a court to admit evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search or seizure “[i]f the state can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the fruits of a challenged search ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243, 254 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted). To meet this burden, the state’s showing must “involve[] no speculative elements but focus[] on demonstrated historical facts capable of ready verification.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 n.5 (1984)."

"It is uncontested that the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Brehmer after observing his erratic driving and had reasonable concern for officer safety such that a Terry frisk was lawful. This frisk would have inevitably revealed the drug pipe with drug residue in Brehmer’s underwear. Indeed, the officer testified that he would have found the pipe “regardless” of any of Brehmer’s statements during the encounter."

"Similarly, the district court found that “a routine records check inevitably would have been performed” and would have revealed that Brehmer’s license was canceled as inimical to public safety and that the vehicle was subject to whiskey plates. Brehmer does not assert that this finding was clearly erroneous. One officer agreed during his testimony that it was “standard operating procedure to identify an individual” during a traffic stop, that the officer would have learned that Brehmer’s license was canceled, and that the officer would have discovered that the vehicle should have been displaying whiskey plates when stopped. See Diede, 795 N.W.2d at 846-47."

"Based on these inevitabilities, the officers would have had probable cause to arrest Brehmer for operating a vehicle while his license was canceled as inimical to public safety—a gross misdemeanor. Minn. Stat. §§ 171.04, subd. 1(10), .24, subd. 5(1) (2020). And given that probable cause to arrest, officers would have inevitably discovered the drug pipe with residue on Brehmer in a search incident to arrest. Brehmer’s erratic driving, drug pipe with residue, and his canceled license and vehicle-registration status, taken together, formed sufficient probable cause to support a warrant for chemical testing for DWI."

Moral Of The Story: If someone continues to drive and act the wrong way, they will inevitably get into trouble.

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.

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

The Minnesota WI Case Of The Week is Reihs v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided January 20, 2025, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published) which stands for the proposition that an extension of a revocation or cancellation of a driver's license is not subject to judicial review. I always thought procedural due process required that any government action concerning the "property interest" of a driver's license is subject to judicial review, but live and learn, in this case, to one's detriment.

In Reihs, the Petitioner's license had been revoked due to a drunk driving arrest.  Reihs enrolled in the Minnesota's Ignition Interlock program which enabled him to regain driving privileges subject to the requirements laid out in the interlock-program guidelines. 

The interlock-program guidelines require participants to submit to two types of alcohol-detecting breath tests via a device installed in their vehicle: an initial test and rolling tests. The participant must pass the initial test to legally start their vehicle. The device then periodically requests rolling tests at intervals of five to 45 minutes while the vehicle is running. 

Reihs he failed to complete multiple rolling tests. Because of this, in July 2023, the commissioner sent him a warning letter stating that he had violated the interlock-program guidelines and that further violations would result in an extension of his program enrollment. In September, after Reihs again missed rolling tests, the commissioner informed him that his license-revocation period was extended for 180 days pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 5(a). And when Reihs thereafter continued to miss rolling tests, the commissioner advised him that his revocation period was extended for an additional year. Both extension notices included language informing Reihs that he had “the right to judicial review” as “outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 171.19.”

Reihs filed a challenge in district court to the extension of the license revocation period but the lower court held that it lacked "subject matter" jurisdiction because extension of a revocation is not one of the five challenges enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 171.19. 

In a published decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court stating:

"Minn. Stat. § 171.19 provides, in pertinent part:

Any person whose driver’s license has been refused, revoked, suspended, canceled, or disqualified by the commissioner, except where the license is revoked or disqualified under section 169A. 52, 171.177, or 171.186, may file a petition for a hearing in the matter in the district court."

"First, Reihs asserts that extending a license-revocation period constitutes a 'revocation' under Minn. Stat. § 171.19 because there is “no material difference” between   a revocation and an extension of revocation. He suggests that an extension of a revocation period is, effectively, a 're-revocation.' We disagree."

The appellate court reviewed various definitions of revocation and found, "...'revocation' plainly means the initial act or instance of withdrawing a person’s driver’s license. Because an extension of a revocation period is not an initial instance of license withdrawal but a continuation of a withdrawal that has already occurred, it is a distinct and separate action from the revocation itself. Simply put, a revocation extension does not alter the license status of the revoked person. Accordingly, we conclude that the plain meaning of the term “revocation,” as used in Minn. Stat. § 171.19, does not include an extension of a driver’s license revocation issued pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 5(a)."

"Second, Reihs argues that, if an extension of revocation is not a “revocation” under Minn. Stat. § 171.19, it is a “de facto refusal to restore [his] license.” This argument is no more convincing."

"Like “revocation,” the term “refusal” is not statutorily defined. See Minn. Stat. § 171.01. Dictionaries define it as “[t]he act or an instance of refusing,” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1478, and “a denial or rejection of something demanded or offered,” 13 The Oxford English Dictionary 494. To “refuse” means to “indicate unwillingness to do, accept, give, or allow,” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1478, and to “decline to take or accept (something offered or presented); to reject [an] offer,” 13 The Oxford English Dictionary 495."

"The ordinary meaning of the term “refusal” clearly contemplates an action taken in response to a preceding request, application, or demand. Indeed, “indicating] unwillingness” and “declining] to accept” are both affirmative, responsive actions. Similarly, both definitional phrases imply discretion on the part of the refuser. It follows that an extension of revocation issued due to a violation of the interlock-program guidelines cannot be a “refusal.” This is so because an extension does not arise from any sort of request or application and it does not depend on the exercise of the commissioner’s discretion. Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 5(a) (stating “[i]f a program participant. . . violates the program guidelines . . ., the commissioner shall extend the person’s revocation period” (emphasis added)). We conclude that the plain meaning of the term “refusal,” as used in Minn. Stat. § 171.19, does not encompass an extension of a driver’s license revocation issued under Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 5(a). 

"A district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Minn. Stat. § 171.19 to review the extension of a driver’s license-revocation period. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Reihs’s petition."

Moral Of The Story: Once you are in the program, the Courts are not going to help you get out of it.

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 Lorsung v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided December 30, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if an officer's suspicion of intoxication has been dispelled, he may not subsequently administer a preliminary breath test and the arrest of the petitioner is illegal.

In Lorsung, Officer Sonterre of the New Brighton police responded to a reported automobile collision in a bar parking lot. Officer Sonterre learned that Melissa Lorsung had been backing out of her parking spot when her car bumped an apparently intoxicated pedestrian. The officer also learned that Lorsung had been drinking inside the bar and had left the bar around closing time. Lorsung was smoking a cigarette when Officer Sonterre first approached her. He did not smell alcohol on her breath or observe any of the typical tell-tale signs of alcohol impairment, like bloodshot and watery eyes, unstable balance, or slurred speech.

Officer Sonterre directed Lorsung to perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. Officer Sonterre noticed no indication of impairment during the test.

Officer Paul Yang then spoke with Lorsung. Officer Yang, who waited with Lorsung and spent more time near her than Officer Sonterre, also did not observe bloodshot or watery eyes, slurred speech, or the odor of alcoholic beverages. Lorsung said, “[W]e’re free to leave, I guess.” He watched Lorsung move her car about three feet out of the way and into a parking spot, which he later said he would not have allowed had he believed she was impaired. Officer Yang told Lorsung that he didn’t want to keep her and asked if she had any questions before she left.

Officer Sonterre spoke with his supervising sergeant. Officer Sonterre told the sergeant that Lorsung was not drunk, and he agreed that it appeared that an impaired pedestrian had walked into the car of a sober driver. But the pedestrian and her family were still present, and Officer Sonterre said that he would administer another sobriety test before allowing Lorsung to leave, reasoning, “[S]o they can’t say I didn’t do my job.”

The preliminary breath test revealed an alcohol concentration level of .145 and Ms. Lorsung was placed under arrest.  A subsequent Data Master breath test revealed Ms. Lorsung was over the legal limit and her driver's license was subsequently revoked.

Ms. Lorsung challenged the revocation in district court arguing the officer lacked a "reasonable suspicion" to administer the preliminary breath test. The District Court upheld the revocation but on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the District Court stating:

"[B]efore an officer may ask a driver to submit to a PBT, he must have a reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver is impaired. Minn. Stat. § 169A.41, subd. 1 (Supp. 2023); see Sarberv. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 819N.W.2d465 (Minn. App. 2012) (reversing an implied-consent license revocation where the officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the investigation). Because the exclusionary rule requires the district court to suppress the results of a PBT administered without reasonable suspicion, see State v. Diede, 795 N. W.2d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011), we must consider whether the district court properly concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to ask Lorsung to perform the PBT."

"Our review leads us to disagree with the district court’s determination. We review “a district court’s determination of reasonable suspicion de novo” and “accept[] the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.” Kruse v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 906 N.W.2d 554, 557 (Minn. App. 2018). Reasonable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis to suspect a driver of criminal activity considering the totality of the circumstances. State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 822-23 (Minn. 2004); State v. Taylor, 965 N.W.2d 747, 752 (Minn. 2021). We understand that, after Officer Sonterre began his investigation, he had reason to suspect that Lorsung had been driving while impaired. He knew that she had been drinking and that she had backed into a pedestrian in the parking lot of a bar at closing time. Even with no other indicia of impairment, a reasonable officer would suspect—as the officer here initially suspected—that Lorsung was impaired. But Officer Sonterre did not ask Lorsung to perform a PBT when he first suspected her impairment. He used other means to test his suspicion. He looked for signs of impairment in her balance, in the condition of her eyes, and in her speech. He testified at the implied- consent hearing that none of his observations of those things supported the idea that she was impaired. He then directed Lorsung to perform the horizontal gaze nystagmus test. And his observation of her performance on that test combined with the accident investigation and his ongoing observations of Lorsung led him to believe, contrary to his initial suspicion, that he had apparently encountered a case of a drunk pedestrian walking into the car of a sober driver. Corroborating Officer Sonterre’s belief, Officer Yang, who observed Lorsung the longest, also thought that she was not impaired."

"The commissioner emphasizes the circumstances preceding the officer’s no longer reasonably suspecting Lorsung’s impairment. But the totality of circumstances includes an officer’s consideration of new information that tends to dispel previous reasonable suspicion. This is because police intrusions after their reasonable suspicion has been dispelled are unconstitutional. State v. Pleas, 329 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Minn. 1983); State v. Hickman, 491 N.W.2d 673, 675 (Minn. App. 1992), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1992). The commissioner does not identify, and the district court did not find, any indicia of Lorsung’s intoxication that any officer observed between the time of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and the time Officer Sonterre reapproached to ask her to perform the PBT. We have no difficulty concluding that a reasonable officer in Officer Sonterre’s shoes would have reasonably suspected, just as the officers here reasonably suspected, that Lorsung was not impaired when Officer Sonterre asked her to perform the PBT. Because the information available to the officers in the developing investigation would have dispelled (and did dispel) their objective reasonable suspicion that Lorsung was impaired, Officer Sonterre lacked reasonable suspicion to request the test."

"We are also unpersuaded by the commissioner’s argument that Officer Sonterre’s decision not to dismiss Lorsung shows that his reasonable suspicion had not been dispelled. The argument glosses over three important facts. The first is that Officer Sonterre is trained to notice signs of intoxication. The second is that he was satisfied that Lorsung was not impaired. And the third and most important is that the reason he did not dismiss Lorsung before he requested the PBT was not because he suspected that she was impaired but because he sought to confirm his contrary suspicion for the sake of demonstrating a thorough review for the struck pedestrian and her family."

***

"Officer Sonterre ended his impaired-driving investigation after Lorsung successfully completed the nystagmus test, and his reason for asking for the PBT was not based on his reasonable suspicion of her impairment but instead on his reasoned suspicion of her nonimpairment. The officer had no basis to request a subsequent chemical test. We reverse the commissioner’s decision to revoke Lorsung’s driving privileges."

MORAL OF THE STORY: You can't be tested if you are above suspicion.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Vredenburg (Decided May 13, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that out-of-court statements are admissible to establish the element of probable cause in a DWI test refusal case.

In Vredenburg, the police encountered the Defendant, apparently impaired, causing a disturbance near her former boyfriend’s home before later seeing her car driving away from the area. Police momentarily lost sight of the car, but soon saw it parked and found Vredenburg walking nearby with the key to the car in her pocket. Police arrested her on suspicion of impaired driving and the state charged her with chemical-test refusal. Vredenburg appealed from her test-refusal conviction, arguing that admitting evidence of statements provided by a bystander violated both the evidentiary rule prohibiting hearsay and Vredenburg’s constitutional right to confront witnesses.

A man reported to Rochester police that his former girlfriend, Mickela Vredenburg, was outside his house yelling and hitting his front door. Officers arrived and found Vredenburg. They noticed that she smelled of an alcoholic beverage, she slurred her speech, and her balance was unstable. An officer offered to drive Vredenburg home, but she declined. She told the officers that she had not driven there and that she had already arranged for a ride. She walked away.

Officers left but were soon dispatched to return. Vredenburg was at the house again, this time reportedly banging her head against the back door. Police did not find her at the house. But they knew she drove a black Ford Edge, and about a block away an officer saw a car of that description speeding past. The officer turned onto a different street, attempting to intercept the Ford. She soon found the Ford parked on the street, empty and situated partially in the grass, near two townhomes.

The officer stopped immediately behind the Ford and beside a bystander who was standing in the street. She got out and asked the bystander, “Did you see where that woman went?” The bystander, who lived nearby, said, “Yeah, she went right straight through there,” pointing between two townhomes. The officer walked in the indicated direction but did not immediately find Vredenburg. She returned to the bystander and questioned her further about what she had seen, asking for a description of the driver.

Meanwhile, other officers found Vredenburg walking in a direction away from where the officer had found her parked car. Vredenburg denied that she had been driving, but the officers were not persuaded. They arrested her on suspicion of drunk driving, and, searching her after the arrest, found the key to the parked Ford.

The Defendant was taken to the Olmsted County detention center where she was asked to submit to chemical testing.  Ms.Vredenburg refused testing and was subsequently charged with 3rd Degree DWI Refusal. The Defendant was convicted after a jury trial and on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating:

"We are unconvinced by Vredenburg’s challenge to the district court’s decision to admit evidence of the bystander’s statements to the officer. Vredenburg is correct that hearsay statements are generally inadmissible at trial. See Minn. R. Evid. 802. She is also correct that, relatedly, testimonial out-of-court statements are generally not admissible unless the defendant has an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. See U.S. Const, amend. VI; Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004); State v. Sutter, 959 N.W.2d 760, 764-65 (Minn. 2021). But these prohibitions are inapplicable here. An out- of-court statement repeated at trial is not hearsay unless it is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Minn. R. Evid. 801(c). And identically, “[t]he [Confrontation] Clause . . . does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9; see also Andersen v. State, 830 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. 2013). Vredenburg’s evidentiary and constitutional challenges to the district court’s decision to admit evidence of the bystander’s out-of-court statements therefore fails if the statements were admissible for some other reason."

"We have no difficulty concluding that the challenged statements were offered for some purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted. The supreme court has explained that “[Refusing a chemical test is not a crime . . . unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer had ‘probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle’ while impaired.” State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 1(b) (2010)). The bystander’s statements to the officer supported the officer’s suspicion that Vredenburg had just driven the car that the officer found parked. Officers may rely on eyewitness statements to establish reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest. See City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd, 420 N.W.2d 887, 888, 891 (Minn. 1988) (holding that police had “sufficient information to reasonably suspect that the driver of the car in question was intoxicated” based on a gas-station attendant’s report to police “that he had observed an intoxicated driver leave the gas station”). The bystander’s statements about Vredenburg exiting the car and walking away from it were therefore admissible to prove a circumstance that establishes probable cause to suspect her of impaired driving. In other words, the bystander’s statement that Vredenburg was driving was not offered as substantive evidence that she was in fact driving, but to support the conclusion of police that they had probable cause to believe that she had been. Because the statements were admissible to provide the officer’s basis for probable cause, which is a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted, it was not subject to exclusion by either the rule prohibiting hearsay or the Confrontation Clause."

Moral Of The Story: Sometimes a woman scorned feels the fury.

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Obowa v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided February 5, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands, once again, for the proposition that any vehicle equipment violation justifies the stop of the motor vehicle.

In Obowa, a law-enforcement officer with the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department was driving northbound on Lake Drive. A passenger vehicle was driving directly in front of the officer’s squad car. When the driver of the vehicle braked to stop for a red light, the officer observed that one of the vehicle’s brake lights was not working. The officer then initiated a traffic stop by pulling over the vehicle.

The officer spoke to the driver, James Obowa, and the officer could smelled the odor of alcohol, and observed Mr. Obowa exhibited bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Further testing resulted in the arrest of Mr. Obowa for DWI and in the revocation of his driver's license.

Mr. Obowa challenged the license revocation but the district court sustained the revocation. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, stating:

"A law enforcement officer may, however, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a motor vehicle when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Taylor, 965 N.W.2d 747, 752 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). To satisfy the reasonable-suspicion standard, the officer “must articulate a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted)."

"In the traffic-stop context, the bar for reasonable suspicion is relatively low. See Taylor, 965 N.W.2d at 752, 757. “Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Minn. 2004)."

***

"Obowa challenges the district court’s determination that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to support the traffic stop. More specifically, Obowa contends that the district court’s decision is based on a mistake of law and a mistake of fact because the record does not reflect that the officer had an objective basis to suspect that Obowa was operating his vehicle in violation of a traffic law. Based on our review of the applicable traffic laws and the record in this case, we are not persuaded."

"Minnesota law requires that a vehicle’s stop lamps and signal lamps “must at all times be maintained in good working condition.” Minn. Stat. § 169.57, subd. 3(a) (2022). In State v. Beall, we clarified that the statute “unambiguously applies to all lamps with which a vehicle is equipped.” 771 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Minn. App. 2009) (emphasis added). We concluded that “[a] vehicle with an inoperable [] brake light is operated unlawfully in violation of [section 169.57, subdivision 3(a)].” Id. And we held that an officer’s observation of a violation of that statutory provision “gives rise to objective, reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying a traffic stop.” Id.

"Beall instructs that an officer’s mere observation of an inoperable brake light is sufficient to justify a traffic stop. See id. That is exactly what the officer testified to in this case. At the implied-consent hearing, he stated that “when the vehicle applied its brakes, the driver’s-side brake light was inoperable.” This testimony is sufficient to support the traffic stop based on a violation of section 169.57, subdivision 3(a). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in its determination that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Obowa."

Moral Of The Story: An ill equipped car is like living with a snitch.

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Bjerke v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided May 9, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Court will not decide the constitutionality of the "wide turn" statute if the stop can be upheld on other grounds.

In Bjerke, the Defendant was arrested for DWI after being stopped for failing to properly stop for a stop sign and for making a wide turn in violation of Minnesota Statute § 169.19, sub. 1(a).  The criminal and license revocation hearings were combined and the Defendant moved to suppress all of the state's evidence. The Defendant argued that the sheriff's deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle and that Statute  169.19, subs. 1(a) was unconstitutionally vague.

The arresting officer testified that at approximately 10:45 p.m. on April 1, 2021, he observed a Chrysler 300 sedan being driven in the downtown area of Mankato where there are several bars. The deputy testified that he observed the sedan stopped at the intersection of Main Street and Second Street with the front tires of the vehicle stopped “over the crosswalk” such that the vehicle was obstructing the crosswalk. The deputy testified that the driver of the vehicle then made a wide right turn, followed by another wide right turn. According to the deputy, the vehicle crossed over the center lane divider when the driver made both right turns.

Bjerke testified that he has a Class A commercial driver’s license, which allows him to drive combination tractor/trailers. According to Bjerke, he makes wide turns “[a]ll the time” in order “to avoid anything on the curb, or a door opening, going to the right.” And Bjerke acknowledged that he made wide right turns prior to being stopped by the deputy.

The district court determined that Bjerke’s “wide turn provided an independent reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of the car.” The district court also determined that Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(a) is not unconstitutionally vague because, although the statutory phrase ‘“as close as practicable’ is imprecise,” it is “not incomprehensible.” The district court, therefore, denied Bjerke’s motion to suppress, and sustained the revocation of his driver’s license.

On Appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

Minnesota Statute §169.19, subd. 1(a) provides, "Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. When necessary to accommodate vehicle configuration, a driver is permitted to make a right turn into the farthest lane of a roadway with two or more lanes in the same direction in order to make a U-turn at a reduced conflict intersection, if it is safe to do so."

* * *

"...in State v. Morse, the supreme court considered a challenge to a traffic stop that was made after a driver made a wide turn and subsequently drifted within a traffic lane. 878 N.W.2d 499, 502 (Minn. 2016). Although there was a question as to whether the driver in Morse violated a traffic law, the supreme court upheld the legality of the stop based on the totality of the circumstances, which included (1) the squad-car video supporting the officer’s assertion that the driver’s right turn was not as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway; (2) the squad-car video showing the driver’s vehicle drifting in its lane; (3) the fact that the events occurred close to 2:00 a.m. bar closing time; (4) the fact that the driver was leaving downtown, an area with bars; and (5) the officer’s training and experience.  Id. at 502-03.

Here, the district court found that Bjerke was stopped at approximately 10:45 p.m. “in an area of Mankato where there are many bars and heavy foot traffic.” The district court also found that the deputy “credibly testified” that he observed Bjerke’s vehicle stopped over the crosswalk such that the vehicle “was obstructing the crosswalk.” And the district court found that the deputy observed Bjerke’s vehicle make two wide right turns such that the “driver’s side tires went over the lane divider and into the oncoming lane of traffic.” Finally, the district court found that “there was no evidence the ‘vehicle configuration’ was such to make a wide right turn permissible.” The record supports the district court’s findings, including Bjerke’s admission that he made two wide right turns prior to being stopped, as well as the squad-car video that shows Bjerke make two wide right-hand turns. In fact, the squad-car video shows that when Bjerke made the second wide right-hand turn, his vehicle drifted considerably into the oncoming lane of traffic. The circumstances presented here are similar to the circumstances presented in Morse, in which the supreme court upheld the legality of the stop. See 878 N.W.2d at 502. Therefore, even if Bjerke’s wide right turns did not constitute a traffic violation, we conclude that, under Morse, the totality of the circumstances provided the deputy with the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop of Bjerke’s vehicle. And because the totality of the circumstances surrounding Bjerke’s driving conduct provided a reasonable basis to stop Bjerke’s vehicle, we need not address Bjerke’s contention that Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(a) is unconstitutionally vague."

Moral Of The Story: The Courts will not address the constitutionality of a statute if the matter can be resolved on other grounds.

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.

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 Halicki v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided April 25, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you have to make a sufficient showing of a particular need in order to obtain the source code of the breath testing equipment.

In Halicki, the petitioner was arrested for dwi and tested at a .08% on the DataMaster breath testing equipment.  Petitioner challenged the license revocation and sought to obtain the DMT's computer source code.  

Halicki argued that the source code is relevant to whether his test revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.08 and whether the DMT testing method is valid and reliable. In support of his motion, he submitted the testimony of Dr. Andreas Stolz and exhibits purporting to show how an error in the source code could result in an erroneous DMT test result. In opposition to the motion, the commissioner submitted his own exhibits, including Halicki’s test results and an affidavit from forensic scientists in the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension supporting the veracity and reliability of DMT breath testing.

The district court denied the discovery request, "concluding that nothing suggested that the particular DMT device used to test Halicki’s breath malfunctioned or was improperly used; “Dr. Stolz is not a qualified expert on breath testing or source code analysis”; and the commissioner did not possess the source code as it “is under the exclusive control of Intoximeters, Inc.” 

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, stating:

"The DMT source code is not subject to mandatory discovery. Accordingly, the focus of our analysis is whether the district court abused its discretion by concluding the source code is not relevant to Halicki’s claims or defenses. Halicki contends it is relevant to determine whether the testing method was “valid and reliable” and whether the test results were “accurately evaluated,” as set out in Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b)(10). The commissioner asserts that Halicki did not make the requisite showing of relevance because he did not provide evidence of potential error specific to his test."

*    *    *

"Halicki cites State v. Underdahl, 767 N.W.2d 677 (Minn. 2009) (Underdahl II), for the proposition that the DMT source code is relevant to the validity and reliability of his breath-test results. In Underdahl II, the supreme court considered two consolidated criminal cases in which the district court ordered the State of Minnesota to produce the source code for the Intoxilyzer 5000. 767 N.W.2d at 679. As to defendant Underdahl, the supreme court concluded that the district court abused its discretion because Underdahl “made no threshold evidentiary showing whatsoever” that the source code was relevant to his guilt or innocence. Id. at 685. As to defendant Brunner, the supreme court discerned no abuse of discretion because Brunner “submitted source code definitions, written testimony of a computer science professor that explained issues surrounding the source codes and their disclosure, and an example of a breath-test machine analysis and its potential defects.” Id. at 686. Halicki asserts that he, like Brunner, sufficiently demonstrated the relevance of the DMT source code to warrant discovery. We are not persuaded for three reasons."

"First, Halicki overlooks the significant distinction between the discovery afforded in criminal and civil cases. In a criminal case, district courts may order discovery of any information that “may relate to the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.01, subd. 2(3). In contrast, in an implied-consent case, the party seeking nonmandatory discovery must show how the information sought bears on the validity and reliability of the testing method used and the test results in the case at hand. Minn. Stat. § 169.53, subd. 3(b)(10); Abbott, 760 N.W.2d at 925-26 (citing Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02). Underdahl II provides helpful context regarding the type of evidence courts consider in determining the relevance of a breath-testing device’s source code. But it does not alter Halicki’s burden to show that the source code is relevant to his claims and defenses regarding his breath test or compel a conclusion that the district court abused its discretion."

"Second, we see no clear error in the district court’s finding that Dr. Stolz is not a qualified expert on the topic of breath testing or the DMT source code. Halicki did not expressly challenge this finding in his briefing. Generally, “issues not argued in briefs are deemed waived on appeal.” State v. Grecinger, 569 N.W.2d 189, 193 n.8 (Minn. 1997). But even if Halicki did not waive this challenge, the record supports the district court’s finding regarding Dr. Stolz’s qualifications. Dr. Stolz is an associate professor at the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University. He studies rare isotopes and programs computer software to analyze measurements of these isotopes. He testified about his general familiarity with source codes but acknowledged that his work does not involve breath testing, source codes for breath-testing equipment, or the DMT. In short, the record supports the district court’s finding that Dr. Stolz lacks expertise to support Halicki’s request for discovery of the source code."

"Third, the district court did not misapply the law or otherwise abuse its discretion in determining that the evidence Halicki offered does not establish that the source code is relevant to Halicki’s claims and defenses. Halicki emphasizes that he submitted a law- review article, two newspaper articles, an article from an academic journal, and the expert report generated in State v. Chun, 943 A.2d 114 (N.J. 2008), which Brunner submitted in support of his discovery motion in Underdahl II. None of these submissions shed light on how the DMT source code is relevant to Halicki’s claims or defenses. The law-review article does not discuss the DMT source code or any potential problems with it, instead stating that “[m]any times, the greatest challenge is convincing the court that the source code is relevant and material” before directing the reader to other secondary sources. The newspaper articles chronicle experiences working with and assessing the reliability of breath-testing devices nationwide; neither mentions the DMT’s source code or anything specific to Halicki’s test results. And while the academic article concludes the DMT is not reliable at detecting the presence of mouth alcohol, Halicki does not contend that mouth alcohol affected his test results. Finally, the Chun report concerned the source code for the Alcotest 7110 Mk III, not the DMT."

Moral Of The Story: You probably have a better chance of getting the source code in the related criminal case.

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Waltz (Decided March 21, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police get to search the car and arrest the driver when the occupied vehicle reeks of marijuana.

In Waltz, the Montevideo police received a report that a female was passed out in a running car in a convenience store parking lot.  The first officer to arrive approached the car and after some effort, awoke the unconscious driver, Ms Waltz.  The officer had to knock on the window and shine his flashlight in her eyes to awaken Ms. Waltz. 

While standing next to the car, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana and when the defendant rolled down her window, the odor was even more intense.

Two other officers arrived together in a second patrol car. They approached the car and confirmed that there was a strong marijuana smell.

The Defendant was asked to exit the car and the vehicle was searched. The police found a plastic grocery bag containing approximately ten grams of marijuana.  

The police asked Waltz whether she had been using marijuana, and she admitted to smoking a blunt  a few hours before. Suspecting that Waltz was under the influence of marijuana or a controlled substance, the sergeant asked Waltz to perform some field sobriety tests and conducted a preliminary breath test, which revealed a zero alcohol concentration. The sergeant arrested Waltz based on suspicion that she had been driving while impaired and provided her with a Miranda warning.

The Defendant was charged with DWI and possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Walz moved to suppress the evidence of marijuana that police seized from her car and her admissions to the police that she had smoked marijuana.

Waltz claimed that the police had no basis to detain her for a criminal investigation or to search her car once they determined that she was not in distress. And she asserted that the police unlawfully interrogated her about her marijuana use without providing a Miranda warning. Waltz argued that these constitutional violations require suppression of the drug evidence found in her car and on her person, the evidence of her impairment, her statements to the police, and any evidence obtained as a result of her statements. 

The district court denied her motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed stating:

"In some circumstances, the police may seize an individual without a search warrant. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). One exception to the warrant requirement permits limited investigatory seizures. State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn. 2004)."

"Under this exception, a police officer may briefly detain an individual when the officer “has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Timberlake, 744N.W.2d 390,393 (Minn. 2008) (quotingIllinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119,123 (2000)) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). But an investigatory detention “may become invalid if it becomes ‘intolerable’ in its ‘intensity or scope.’” Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 364 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 17-18). Thus, each subsequent intrusion “must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered the initiation of the investigation permissible.” State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125, 135 (Minn. 2002). And to expand the scope of an investigatory seizure, the police must have independent probable cause or a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify the subsequent intrusion. Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-21)."

"Here, the district court concluded, and we agree, that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity that justified a limited investigatory detention. Waltz was sleeping in a running car in a public place at 11:00 p.m. When the sergeant approached the car, he smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana. Waltz was difficult to rouse; the sergeant was required to bang on the car window and shine his flashlight in her eyes. The marijuana smell became more intense when Waltz finally rolled her window down. And the two other officers who arrived to assist with the investigation confirmed that they could smell marijuana even while standing three feet away from Waltz’s car. Given these facts, the officers had reason to suspect that Waltz was driving while impaired and that she possessed marijuana in a motor vehicle. Either of these suspicions provided a basis for an investigatory detention. See State v. Doren, 654 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Minn. App.2002) (stating that a car passenger’s “extraordinary nervousness,” the smell of burned marijuana emanating from the passenger’s location, and the passenger’s appearance of being under the influence together provide a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 26, 2003).

"Waltz argues that even if the initial seizure was valid, the officers unlawfully expanded the scope of the stop by searching her car. The state responds that the officers’ actions were permissible under another exception to the warrant requirement—the automobile exception."

"The automobile exception allows police to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” State v. Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). Determining whether there is probable cause requires an objective inquiry that evaluates the totality of the circumstances in a particular case. Id. These circumstances include the reasonable inferences that law enforcement officers may make based on their training and experience. State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011)."

"The state points out that “[t]he detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.” State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn. App. 1984); see also State v. Wicklund, 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn. 1973). And the state notes that undercurrent Minnesota law, the smell of marijuana provides probable cause for a vehicle search. See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (stating that the automobile exception applies when an officer smells marijuana emanating from a car)."

"While we do not disagree with the state’s summary of the law, we note that the factual circumstances here included more than an odor of marijuana. Again, Waltz was found soundly sleeping in a running car near midnight. The car was parked in a convenience store parking lot. When finally awakened, Waltz said that she was meeting someone. Three trained police officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana—including fresh marijuana—coming from the car. And Waltz admitted to smoking marijuana in the car earlier. Based on all of these facts, the officers reasonably believed that the car would contain contraband. Because the officers had probable cause to search, their search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement."

Moral Of The Story: You snooze. You lose.

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Jackson v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided March 14, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the burden is on the petitioner to establish physical inability to provide an adequate breath sample.

In Jackson, the Petitioner was arrested for a DWI and he agreed to take a breath test on the DataMaster machine at the police station. During the first attempt, Jackson started and then stopped blowing into the machine, broke a mouthpiece, coughed into the mouthpiece, removed the mouthpiece from his mouth and stared at the officers, dropped the mouthpiece, and chatted with the officers. On the second attempt, Jackson stopped the breath sample to talk, coughed, ignored instructions, puffed his cheeks, and started and stopped blowing. And during the third attempt, Jackson repeated his earlier behaviors. Despite three attempts, Jackson did not provide a sufficient breath sample for testing.

According to the DMT operator, Jackson was “deliberately attempting to beat the test” by “doing as little as he possib[ly could] to try and do the test without actually doing the test.” The second officer present did not believe that Jackson was “deliberately trying to not take the test,” but he saw no indication that Jackson was having difficulty breathing into the machine. Both officers recalled that Jackson remarked about smoking cigars. But Jackson never claimed to the officers that he was physically unable to complete the tests.

Jackson filed a petition challenging the revocation of his driver's license and during the district court hearing, Jackson provided numerous explanations for his failure to provide a sufficient breath sample, including seasonal allergies, nervousness and anxiety around law enforcement, cigar smoking, and inadequate instructions from the officers.

The district court sustained the revocation and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, noting:

"Failure to provide two adequate breath samples constitutes a refusal under Minnesota’s implied-consent law. Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 5(a), (c) (2020). But a driver may prove as an affirmative defense that the refusal to submit to a chemical test “was based on reasonable grounds.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(c) (2020). A driver’s inability to provide a breath sample is one such ground that may be raised at an implied- consent hearing. Wolle v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 413 N.W.2d 258, 260 (Minn. App. 1987). To rely on this affirmative defense, a driver must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unable to provide adequate breath samples due to physical inability. Bale v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 385 N.W.2d 870, 873 (Minn. App. 1986). Whether a person is physically unable to provide a breath sample is a question of fact for the district court that we review for clear error. Burke v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 381 N.W.2d 903, 904 (Minn. App. 1986)."

"Jackson contends that he satisfied his burden of proof by presenting sufficient evidence of his physical inability to test. Because the district court did not clearly err in finding otherwise, we disagree."

"Although Jackson testified that he was unable to provide a sufficient breath sample for various reasons—including allergies, anxiety, and cigar smoking—the district court found that his testimony was not credible. Moreover, the district court noted that Jackson failed to introduce any independent evidence to support his claim that he was unable to take the DMT breath test. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Jackson’s testimony was the sole evidence provided in support of his affirmative defense. And we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations."

Moral Of The Story:  It is good to be a blowhard when you are taking a breath test!

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.

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

 The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Urratia, (Decided March 1, 2021, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that some appeals are just a big waste of time.

In Urratia, the Defendant was arrested and convicted of DWI. On appeal, he argued the district court committed reversible error when it failed to suppress the evidence of his crime as the arresting officer used excessive force in making the arrest.

In February 2019, a Beltrami County Deputy Sheriff was patrolling a rural area late at one night when he observed a car with a loud exhaust passing him in the opposite direction. The deputy turned his squad car around, intending to initiate a traffic stop. But the loud car stopped in the middle of the road, backed up, and pulled into a driveway. The deputy positioned his squad car in the driveway behind it.

The deputy began approaching on foot and the driver then suddenly left the car. The deputy—alone and surprised—drew his handgun and ordered the driver to the ground. He holstered his gun when he was satisfied that the driver, Jesse Urrutia, was unarmed.

During oral argument on appeal, "his counsel explained that Urrutia is challenging the level of force the sergeant used, but he does not assert that the deputy’s conduct constituted a de facto, unconstitutional arrest." 

(Why Not?)

The Court of Appeals rejected the Defendant's claim noting that the exclusionary rule applies to 4th Amendment violations not excessive force claims:

"As one federal court accurately put it, “[T]here has been no appellate decision holding that the exclusionary rule can serve as a remedy for excessive force collateral to a search or seizure.” United States v. Collins, 714 F.3d 540, 544 (7th Cir. 2013). Urrutia has cited no Minnesota or federal case holding that a seizure that is unconstitutionally excessive in force precipitates the suppression of evidence collected during the seizure and unrelated to the force. It is unlikely that such a case exists, since the exclusionary rule generally justifies suppression of evidence discovered or collected because of a Fourth Amendment violation, United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S. Ct. 613, 619 (1974), not evidence that is collected with no causal relation to an alleged Fourth Amendment violation. We doubt that the sergeant’s conduct here was excessive under the circumstances of Urrutia’s suspicious behavior in the secluded driveway, but because the appeal would fail anyway, we need not consider the assertion."

I do not understand why appellate counsel did not raise the claim of an unconstitutional arrest.  In State v. Carver, 577 N.W.2d 245 (Minn.App. 1998) the Minnesota Court of Appeals held the Defendant was illegally arrested for DWI where he was ordered to the ground and handcuffed before the police developed probable cause.  

At least the Defendant in this case would have had an argument.

Moral Of The Story:  The exclusionary rule does not apply to everything.

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. French (Decided November 23, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the use of machine or computer generated data.

In French, the Defendant was arrested for DWI in Becker County, Minnesota and the police obtained a search warrant for his blood.  The results of the blood test revealed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine. 

Mr. French was subsequently charged with felony DWI.  The defense subsequently learned that, "D.Z.", the scientist who analyzed French's blood, had retired and was not available to testify at trial.  The defense then moved to exclude the results of D.Z.'s lab report as D.Z. was unavailable to testify.

The district court concluded that “the BCA lab report prepared by [D.Z.] is inadmissible unless [D.Z.] herself testifies at trial.” But the court “reserved ruling as to whether another BCA scientist may testify as an expert witness at trial".

Over French’s objection, the district court allowed BCA scientist J.S. testify that French’s blood had been tested for the presence of controlled substances, but that she was not the analyst who conducted the testing. Although D.Z.’s report was not admitted into evidence, J.S. testified that she independently reviewed the raw data in the file associated with French’s case and concluded that French’s blood sample showed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine.

The Defendant was convicted of Felony DWI and on appeal, he argued the admission of J.S.’s opinion testimony, that French’s blood tested positive for a controlled substance, violated his Confrontation-Clause rights because, “the BCA scientist who actually performed the test did not testify".

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction noting:

"As the state points out, French does not address this court’s decision in State v. Ziegler, 855 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. App. 2014). In that case, the defendant was charged with criminal vehicular operation (CVO) and reckless driving. Ziegler, 855 N.W.2d at 552. In preparing for trial, a state trooper used computer software to extract data from the defendant’s vehicle, such as the vehicle’s speed and brake activation prior to the accident at issue. Id. The software generated a report containing the data from the defendant’s vehicle. Id. At trial, however, the prosecution called a different state trooper who provided accident-reconstruction testimony based on his review of the machine¬generated report. Id. at 552-53. The testifying trooper admitted that he was not present when the software extracted the data from the defendant’s vehicle, or when the report was generated. Id. at 553. He also admitted that he did not know whether the software was working properly when the vehicle data was extracted, or whether all proper procedures were followed. Id."

"A jury found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued that the district court violated her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting the data collected from her vehicle through the testimony of a trooper who was not present when the data was collected. Id. at 554. This court disagreed, concluding that “machine-generated data that do not contain the statements of human witnesses are not testimonial statements within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 558. In reaching its decision, the court recognized that “Melendez-Diaz, Bullcoming, Caulfield, and Weaver do not determine the issue presented in this case because in those cases, the objectionable evidence was not limited to machine generated data; it included out-of-court statements made by people regarding the data.” Id. at 555. But the court stated that “several federal circuit courts have addressed the issue and concluded that such data are not testimonial statements within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Id. The court then referred to a Seventh Circuit Court case, which “noted that a chemist’s report admitted into evidence had ‘two kinds of information: the readings taken from the instruments, and the chemist’s conclusion that these readings mean that the tested substance was cocaine’ and that only ‘the latter is testimonial as the Supreme Court used that word in Crawford.’” Id. at 556 (quoting United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359, 361-62 (7th Cir. 2008)). The court also referenced a Fourth Circuit Court case, which concluded that “‘printed data’ generated from chromatograph machines operated by lab technicians were not ‘statements of the lab technicians who operated the machines’ and thus ‘not out- of-court statements made by declarants that are subject to the Confrontation Clause.’” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 229-30 (4th Cir. 2007))."

"This case is akin to Ziegler. As in Ziegler, a machine generated the raw data related to French’s blood sample. Under Ziegler, the raw data is not testimonial. See id. at 558. Although the conclusions in D.Z.’s report are testimonial, the report was not admitted into evidence. Instead, J.S. testified regarding her independent review of the machine¬generated data. As in Ziegler, the admission of machine-generated data through J.S.’s testimony did not trigger French’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. See id. And as the court noted in Ziegler, any question regarding the foundation for J.S.’s opinion is not relevant to French’s Confrontation-Clause argument. See id. at 558 (stating that the defendant’s “concerns regarding the reliability of the data and the data-retrieval process are not resolved under the Confrontation Clause”). Accordingly, J.S.’s testimony about the presence of controlled substances in French’s blood did not violate French’s right to confrontation."

Moral Of The Story: Machine's don't lie. Only people do.

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.

 

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Jante v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided November 16, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you will lose if your attorney does not raise the correct issue.

In Jante, a Douglas County Sheriff's deputy was on routine patrol when he saw a pickup truck stopped in a turn lane with its emergency lights on. The deputy stopped and approached the vehicle on the passenger side. Petitioner was standing outside of the vehicle next to the front passenger door. The door was open. At the Petitioner's feet were empty beer bottles and the truck’s ignition keys.

Seated in the backseat of the vehicle was a passenger.  Both the Petitioner and the backseat passenger claimed the other person was driving.  The Petitioner was arrested for DWI and his license was revoked.

The Petitioner filed a challenge to the license revocation challenging, "whether there was probable cause that the Petitioner was in physical control of the vehicle".   The Petitioner testified he was not the driver. The passenger also testified that she had lied to the police (because she was already on probation) and was in-fact the driver of the vehicle.

In addition, other witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf that they saw the Petitioner leave in his truck with the alleged passenger driving his vehicle.  

The district court sustained the revocation finding that the police had probable cause to believe the Petitioner was driving or in physical control of the motor vehicle.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, confining its analysis to whether there was "probable cause" to believe the Petitioner drove or was in physical control of the motor vehicle.

There are a number of cases [Eg. Liona v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 389 N.W.2d 210 (MN.App. 1986); Winder v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 392 N.W.2d 21 (MN.App. 1986); Rademacher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, _ N.W.2d _ (MN App. 2007, Unpublished)] which hold that when the Petitioner alleges (in his revocation petition )that he or she was not, in fact, the driver or operator or in physical control of the motor vehicle, the Commissioner then has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the  evidence, that Petitioner was, in fact, the driver.

In the present case, it appears the Petitioner only alleged the police did not have "probable cause" to believe he was in physical control, which is a much easier standard for the Commissioner to meet.

Moral Of The Story: If you have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, hire an experienced lawyer who will not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

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.