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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Green (Decided June 9, 2025, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which, once again, stands for the proposition that if the officer has probable cause to arrest for DWI, it constitutes a gross misdemeanor to refuse to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

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. Payton (Decided November 18, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police will be believed without definitive proof to the contrary.

In Payton, the Defendant was arrested and charged with Third Degree DWI - Refusal to submit to testing. Mr. Peyton challenged the legality of the initial stop but the district court ruled that the stop was valid. On appeal, Mr. Peyton alleged the district court "clearly erred" when it ruled his vehicle crossed a white-dashed centerline without signaling, thereby giving the police officer reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle.   

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling stating:

"When reviewing a district court’s decision to deny a pre-trial suppression motion, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal determinations de novo. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008). We 'will not conclude that a factfinder clearly erred unless, on the entire evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' In re Civ. Commitment of Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221 (Minn. 2021)."

***

"Here, the officer testified that he initiated a traffic stop because he observed Payton swerve 6-12 inches over the white-dashed centerline, without signaling, for 20-30 feet before recentering the vehicle in the appropriate lane. The officer indicated his belief that this conduct violated Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(1), which states, “When any roadway has been divided into two [lanes] ... a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.” The officer testified that he “clear[ly]” observed the violation and indicated exactly when the violation occurred in the dash-camera video. The district court found the officer’s testimony credible, and we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations.  See State v. Smith, 448 N.W.2d 550, 555- 56 (Minn. App. 1989), rev. denied (Minn. Dec. 29, 1989). Based on this evidence, the district court found that Payton’s vehicle “swerve[d] and cross[ed] the dashed white line separating the two lanes without signaling.” We conclude that the evidence amply supports the district court’s finding that Payton crossed the white-dashed centerline without signaling."

"Payton disagrees, arguing the district court clearly erred when it found he crossed the white-dashed centerline. Payton relies on his assertion that the dash-camera video does not support the officer’s testimony. But contrary to Payton’s argument, though dark and poor quality, the dash-camera video does not contradict the officer’s testimony. While the white-dashed centerline does not appear in the dash-camera video, the dash-camera video plainly captures Payton’s vehicle veering slightly to the right at the time the officer testified that Payton crossed the white-dashed centerline. Although not dispositive, the dash-camera video bolsters the officer’s testimony that a traffic violation occurred."

"For these reasons, we conclude the district court did not clearly err when it found Payton crossed the white-dashed centerline without signaling and, thereby, violated Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7(1). As such, the district court correctly determined the officer had the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting the traffic stop and, therefore, the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion."

Moral Of The Story: It's too bad that police cameras are far inferior to those used in viewing football. 

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 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. Sanchez (Decided October 14, 2024 Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that amenability to treatment is also a basis for the District to depart downward from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

In Sanchez, the Defendant was found guilty by a jury of Felony DWI.The Defendant moved for a downward dispositional departure, arguing that she was particularly amenable to probation if she received chemical-dependency treatment.

A pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) noted that Sanchez has a lengthy criminal history, including four previous felony DWI convictions. Sanchez was also on probation when she committed the current offense. The PSI did not support a probationary sentence based on Sanchez’s continued use of drugs and alcohol and public-safety concerns. The probation agent recommended the presumptive 75-month prison sentence.

The district court granted Sanchez’s motion, finding that with Sanchez’s participation in DWI court comes a “high degree of monitoring” and “a higher probability” that Sanchez will successfully abstain from drugs and alcohol. Instead, the district court stayed the execution of the sentence for five years.

On appeal, the State argued the district court abused its discretion when it granted the dispositional departure. But the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court stating:

"A district court may depart from the presumptive sentence only when “there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a departure.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D. 1 (2022). This court reviews a district court’s decision to grant a motion for a dispositional departure for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 307-08 (Minn. 2014). This court will rarely reverse the district court’s decision because of the district court’s considerable discretion in sentencing. Id. at 305, 307-08. We will affirm a district court’s decision “as long as the record shows the [district] court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a [sentencing] determination.” State v. Van Ruler, 378 N.W.2d 77, 81 (Minn. App. 1985)."

"I am going to grant the motion, because in this situation ... I don’t know about particular amenability. ... I don’t know that she’s going to be successful at treatment and stop, but I think there are substantial and compelling reasons and that one of those is she’s going to be monitored very, very, very, very, very closely from DWI Court and any kind of slip¬up, she’s probably going to be back in front of me for a probation violation."

"[T]hings will really be scrutinized if you come back with a probation violation, because you belong in prison, according to the guidelines. And you, just by yourself, are not a person that there should be a departure."

"But you with DWI Court provides a situation where you’ll have exceptional monitoring, potentially monitoring for a longer period than you would if you were in prison, because the probationary period will be for a full five years. And so there’s a much higher probability that you are going to be successful with probation, with the longer supervision and the accountability."

***

"The state argues that the district court should not have granted the departure because it did not find Sanchez particularly amenable to probation. But the district court noted that Sanchez would be very closely monitored and monitored longer than if she went to prison. See State v. Sejnoha, 512 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 1994) (stating that district court did not abuse its discretion by weighing impact of shorter prison sentence with no guarantee of treatment against treatment program and longer, highly structured probation), rev. denied (Minn Apr. 21, 1994). The district court is afforded great discretion, and it carefully considered the sentence."

Moral Of The Story: If a person does not stop driving drunk, they will end up dead or in prison.

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. Smith (Decided September 30, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published) which stands for the proposition that in a DWI test-refusal case, the State does not have to prove that the officer requesting the breath test is properly certified to operate the testing equipment (i.e. the Data Master breath testing machine).

In Smith, the State of Minnesota charged appellant Ava Thadette Smith with one count of refusal to submit to a breath test, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(1) (2020), for refusing to submit to an evidentiary breath test after Smith was lawfully arrested based on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI). The matter proceeded to a jury trial.

The deputy testified at trial that after placing Ms. Smith under arrest for DWI and bringing here to the Chisago County Jail, she informed Ms. Smith that refusal to submit to a breath test is a crime by reading her the statutorily required breath-test advisory.  After providing Smith an opportunity to contact an attorney, the deputy asked her if she would take a breath test. Smith refused, stating that she did not believe the breath-test machine would be accurate.

The deputy testified about her training in DWI enforcement, including field sobriety testing and roadside DWI investigation. The deputy stated that she received “all the standard training for DWI.” But the deputy did not specifically testify that she was trained to administer breath tests, nor did the deputy say that she was trained to operate the breath¬testing machine.

The Defendant was convicted by the jury of DWI Test Refusal and on appeal, she argued that the evidence was insufficient because the state did not prove that the deputy who requested that she submit to a breath test was fully trained to administer the test per Minnesota Statutes section 169A.51 (2020) (the implied-consent statute).

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, stating:

"On appeal, Smith relies on subdivision 7(c) of the implied-consent statute, which provides that “[t]he person administering a breath test must be fully trained in the administration of breath tests pursuant to training given by the commissioner of public safety.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 7(c). We are not persuaded that the state must prove a would-be test administrator’s training as an element of refusal to submit to a breath test."

"By its plain language, the training requirement in subdivision 7(c) governs a person who is “administering a breath test”—not a person requesting a breath test. That language makes clear that a breath-test administrator’s training comes into play only if a breath test is administered. Moreover, the rest of subdivision 7(c)—which limits liability for persons “drawing blood” at the direction of an officer—likewise applies only if a blood test occurs. Id. (providing that certain “qualified person[s] drawing blood at the request of a peace officer for the purpose of determining the concentration of alcohol, a controlled substance or its metabolite, or an intoxicating substance [are] in no manner liable in any civil or criminal action except for negligence in drawing the blood”). And when subdivision 7 is read as a whole, the other subparts govern circumstances in which a test takes place, not scenarios in which a test is requested and refused. See id., subd. 7(a) (defining who may draw blood), (b) (providing that “[t]he person tested has the right to have someone of the person’s own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any tests administered”). Thus, whether read in isolation or in the context of the statute as a whole, the plain language of the breath-test training requirement set forth in subdivision 7(c) controls how a test must be performed—and therefore applies only if a test is, in fact, administered. See Lampkin, 994 N.W.2d at 287; Robinson, 921 N.W.2d at 758. We are therefore unconvinced that this requirement is relevant if a breath test is refused."

***

"In sum, we hold that the requirement set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 169A.51, subdivision 7(c), that “[t]he person administering a breath test must be fully trained in the administration of breath tests pursuant to training given by the commissioner of public safety[,]” is not an element of the crime of refusal to submit to a breath test under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(1). As a result, the state was not required to prove that the deputy who would have administered Smith’s test, if Smith had not refused that test, was properly trained in the administration of breath tests. Smith’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim therefore fails."

Moral Of The Story: Just say 'yes" to the test!

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Jensen v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided July 22, 2024, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that 2 hours after arrest is the outer limit for the pre-test right to counsel in a DWI case.

In Jensen, the Defendant was stopped at 10:50 p.m. and was subsequently arrested for a DWI. At approximately 12:15 a.m., the deputy read the Defendant the implied-consent advisory and informed him of his right to contact an attorney. Mr. Jensen elected to contact an attorney. The deputy gave the Defendant a telephone and two different attorney-telephone books, and helped Defendant make several calls. The Defendant also watched the deputy use a county computer to search for attorneys based on his precise requests.

After approximately 34 minutes of phone time, around the time when the two-hour alcohol-testing period would expire, the deputy told appellant that his time to contact an attorney was almost over. At approximately 12:50 a.m., the deputy helped appellant make another phone call before ending phone time. Appellant failed to contact an attorney and refused to take the chemical-breath test. Consequently, appellant’s license was revoked.

The license revocation was sustained by the district court and on appeal the Defendant argued his pre-test right to counsel was not vindicated.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals disagree with the Defendant and upheld the license revocation stating:

"Appellant argues that he was not given (1) enough time to contact and receive a return call from counsel at 12:33 a.m., (2) personal internet access, (3) a cellphone, and (4) adequate assistance by law enforcement. To support his argument, appellant first seeks to distinguish this case from two cases that affirmed the determination that the drivers’ right to counsel was vindicated when the drivers received even less phone time than he did. See Parsons v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 488 N.W.2d 500, 502 (Minn. App. 1992); Umphlett v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 533 N.W.2d 636, 639 (Minn. App. 1995), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 30, 1995). We are not persuaded, as both cases undermine, rather than support, appellant’s argument."

"Appellant was given a telephone, two different attorney-telephone books, and 34 minutes to contact an attorney. The deputy used a computer to search for specific attorneys at appellant’s request, and appellant knew his time was limited. Finally, the deputy waited until the two-hour-testing limit was about to expire before ending phone time after giving appellant several warnings. Although here, phone time began at approximately 12:30 a.m., the Parsons court determined that 40 minutes was reasonable at 1:33 a.m. when the driver was (1) provided a telephone and directories, (2) allowed to call anyone she wanted, (3) able to speak with a non-lawyer friend, and (4) aware that her phone time was limited. See Parsons, 488 N.W.2d at 501-02. The facts here are not fundamentally different from those in Parsons, despite appellant’s inability to contact anyone. And appellant points to no binding authority that requires officers to wait until a driver contacts an attorney before ending phone time."

"Second, appellant implies that the facts here are unlike those in Umphlett, in which this court determined that the driver’s right to counsel was vindicated when he was given a telephone and a phone book, understood his time was limited, and chose to make only two phone calls at 9:00 p.m. See Umphlett, 533 N.W.2d at 639. He argues that, unlike Umphlett, he never chose to stop calling attorneys and that his efforts were frustrated by the deputy’s undue concern for obtaining a chemical-breath test. We are not persuaded. The deputy was allowed to balance the need for an accurate sample with the time he had given appellant to contact an attorney, and determine that, because the two-hour testing window was about to expire, he had provided appellant with reasonable time and resources. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2(3) (2022) (stating that driver’s right to consult counsel “is limited to the extent that it cannot unreasonably delay administration of the test”); see also Kuhn, 488 N.W.2d at 842 (recognizing that time under arrest bears on probative value of test)."

"Appellant also argues that, because the deputy did not read the implied-consent advisory until an hour and twenty-seven minutes after stopping him, he should have been afforded extra time to contact an attorney. We disagree. We have previously stated that there is no “absolute timeline during which the implied-consent statute may be invoked” because doing so would be “impractical.” State v. Padilla, No. A07-689, 2008 WL 1868064, at *2-3 (Minn. App. Apr. 29, 2008) (quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 18, 2008); see Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c) (stating that nonprecedential authority may be cited for its persuasive value)."

"Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not err in determining that the deputy vindicated appellant’s limited right to counsel."

Moral Of The Story: Time is not on your side.

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 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. Moore (Decided May 28, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a jury instruction is not improper unless it materially misstates the law.

In Moore, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and the police applied for a search warrant for the Defendant's blood or urine.  As the deputy worked to submit the warrant, Defendant asked to go to the bathroom. The deputy advised Mr. Moore to wait so he could give a urine sample. Moore became increasingly agitated, continuing to ask to use the bathroom and threatening to urinate in the back of the squad car. After appellant’s repeated threats to urinate on the floor of the squad car, the deputy allowed him to use the bathroom in the emergency room at about 3:40 a.m.

At 3:49 a.m., minutes after they returned to the squad car, the deputy received the signed warrant from the judge, and the Defendant orally refused to submit a blood sample.

The deputy then transported appellant to the law-enforcement center for the Defendant to provide a urine sample. There, the deputy offered the Defendant a bottle of water, which Moore refused. The Defendant bought a can of pop from a vending machine and drank some of it. The deputy suggested to the Defendant several times that he try to urinate, but Moore responded that he did not have to because he had urinated so recently. The Defendant went into the bathroom twice but did not provide a urine sample. The deputy deemed the Defendant to have refused to consent to a urine test at 4:49 a.m.

The Defendant was charged with DWI Refusal to submit to testing and was convicted of same by a jury. On appeal, the Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion because the jury instructions “told the jury the State had prove[d] the refusal element” by instructing them, over counsel’s objection, that a “failure to complete the entire test is a refusal.” 

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction noting:

"The state charged appellant under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2020), which states, “It is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test... of the person’s blood or urine as required by a search warrant.” In State v. Ferrier, this court considered whether a person could refuse to submit to a chemical test without orally stating their refusal. 792 N.W.2d 98, 101-02 (Minn. App. 2010) (concluding sufficient circumstantial evidence supported determination appellant refused to submit to a test by conduct when she had been given between six and fifteen glasses of water and made three attempts to produce urine sample over three hours), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 2011). We noted that the statute requires a volitional act; “the statute does not criminalize inability to perform the steps necessary for testing.” Id. Nevertheless, we held that “[a] driver may refuse to submit to chemical testing by words or conduct. We highlighted that “actual unwillingness to submit to testing must be proved.” Id. at 101. “Depending on the total circumstances, failure to perform the necessary steps for testing may be circumstantial evidence of refusal by conduct.” Id. at 102.

"Here, the district court instructed the jury on the fourth element of the crime as follows:

Fourth, [appellant] refused to submit to a blood and urine sample. A failure to complete the entire test is a refusal.

A refusal to submit to chemical testing includes any indication of actual unwillingness to complete the testing process as determined from the driver’s words and actions in light of the totality of the circumstances. Actual unwillingness to submit to testing must be proved."

"Appellant challenges the statement, “A failure to complete the entire test is a refusal.” However, “[i]f the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly state the law in language that can be understood by the jury, there is no reversible error.” State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 549 (Minn. 2010) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted). When the jury instruction for the fourth element is read “as a whole,” the jury had to determine whether the state had proved “[a]ctual unwillingness to submit to testing.” Because the jury instructions “as a whole” accurately stated the law, the district court did not abuse its discretion."

Moral Of The Story: Mostly right is good enough.

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 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. Street (Decided May 6, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that out-of-state convictions may not be used to calculate a defendant's criminal history score without proper documentation.

In Street, the Defendant pled guilty to Felony DWI without any agreement as to sentencing except the State did agree to dismiss the remaining charges. The district court sentenced Street to 57 months in prison, which represented a bottom-of-the-box presumptive sentence based on Street’s criminal history score of five. 

According to the PSI, the score of five included one custody-status point and four felony points. The PSI assigned three felony points for convictions that allegedly occurred in the state of Georgia. The fourth felony point was for Street’s 2019 Minnesota conviction of criminal vehicular operation with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. The PSI identified each Georgia conviction by case number, date of conviction, and sentence, and included a description, date, and location for each convicted offense. The PSI did not include, and the state did not offer, any evidence to substantiate these out-of-state convictions. At sentencing, Street did not object to his criminal-history score.

On appeal, Mr. Street claimed the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him with a criminal-history score that included unsubstantiated out-of-state convictions. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed and remanded the case for resentencing stating:

"An offender’s criminal-history score may include out-of-state convictions if certain requirements are met. See Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.5. The guidelines provide that an out-of-state conviction “may be counted as a felony only if [the offense] would both be defined as a felony in Minnesota, and the offender received a sentence that in Minnesota would be a felony-level sentence, which includes the equivalent of a stay of imposition.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.B.5.b (2020) (emphasis omitted). In assigning weight to an out-of-state offense, “[s]ection 2.B.1 governs the weight of a prior felony conviction from a jurisdiction other than Minnesota, and [the weight] must be based on the severity level of the equivalent Minnesota felony offense.” Minn. Sent’g Guidelines, 2.B.5.C (2020)."

***

"Although the state need not present certified copies of out-of-state convictions for the convictions to be included in a defendant’s criminal-history score, the state must provide “persuasive evidence that sufficiently substitutes for the official, certified record of conviction.” Id. at 711-12. If the state fails to meet its burden, the proper remedy is to reverse and remand for resentencing. See id. at 715. But if the defendant fails to object to his criminal-history score at sentencing, the state may “further develop the sentencing record” on remand to allow the district court to determine whether the relevant out-of-state convictions were properly included in the defendant’s criminal-history score. Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d at 356; see also State v. Strobel, 921 N.W.2d 563, 577 (Minn App. 2018), affd, 932 N.W.2d 303 (Minn 2019)."

***

"The record shows that the state failed to meet its burden of proving that the three alleged Georgia convictions were valid and would constitute felonies under Minnesota law. See Maley, 714 N.W.2d at 711. As Street correctly notes, the state did not present any evidence to support Street’s alleged Georgia convictions, nor did the PSI include any documentation to verify them. Accordingly, the state failed to present “persuasive evidence” that these convictions were properly included in Street’s criminal-history score. See id. at 710-12 (concluding that the state’s reliance on a sentencing worksheet alone was insufficient to substantiate the defendant’s out-of-state convictions); see also State v. Griffin, 336 N.W.2d 519, 525 (Minn. 1983) (concluding that the state met its burden of proof by providing the district court with “considerable documentation” of the defendant’s out-of-state conviction). We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing Street based on a criminal-history score that included unsubstantiated out-of-state convictions, and we reverse and remand for resentencing. See Maley, 714 N.W.2d at 711, 715. Because Street did not object to his criminal-history score at sentencing, the state may supplement the sentencing record on remand. See Outlaw, 748 N.W.2d at 356."

Moral Of The Story: You can't keep score without some paper.

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 Leu v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided March 25, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a person does not lose their status as a "passenger" in a motor vehicle unless they take some action that makes the motor vehicle a source of danger to themselves or others.

Jennifer Leu was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by her husband. A police officer stopped the pickup and suspected Leu's husband was impaired. After conducting field sobriety tests on Leu’s husband, the officer arrested him and directed Leu to remain in the truck. The truck’s engine remained running. At some point, Leu got out of the passenger compartment of the truck and moved to the driver’s seat. However, she did not close the driver’s door. Instead, Leu sat sideways on the driver’s seat, with her feet hanging out of the truck. When the officer observed Leu in that position, she was on her cell phone and explained to the officer that she was requesting a ride home from the scene. Leu exited the truck. Then, she reached inside the truck, switched off the ignition, and put the keys in her pocket. As the officer placed Leu under arrest, a third party arrived to take possession of the truck.

Jennifer Leu's drivers license was revoked for being in physical control of a motor vehicle.  Ms. Leu filed a challenge to the revocation but the district court upheld the revocation. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rightly reversed the district court, stating:

"The term “physical control” is more comprehensive than the terms “drive” and “operate.” State v. Harris, 202N.W.2d 878, 881 (Minn. 1972). The term “physical control” should be given “the broadest possible effect” to deter inebriated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Juncewski, 308N.W.2d 316, 319 (Minn. 1981) (quotation omitted). Generally, physical control is meant to cover situations in which “an inebriated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances where the car, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property.” State v. Starfield, 481 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Minn 1992)."

"However, [i]t is, of course, no crime for an intoxicated person to be in a motor vehicle as a passenger. A passenger, by definition, is someone who is merely along for the ride. When, however, only one person is found in or about a stopped car, the question arises whether that person is a passenger or a person in physical control of the motor vehicle. Mere presence in or about the vehicle is not enough for physical control; it is the overall situation that is determinative."

"Thus, the supreme court has articulated a different physical-control standard for a “known passenger” in Shane. 587 N.W.2d at 639. Under that standard: [F]or a police officer to have probable cause to believe a known passenger is in physical control of a motor vehicle, the officer must have reason to believe that the passenger has or is about to take some action that makes the motor vehicle a source of danger to themselves, to others, or to property."

***

"After the driver in Shane was removed from the vehicle, Shane asked the police officer if he could drive the vehicle home. Id. at 640. Later, Shane touched the vehicle’s gas pedal from his position in the passenger seat while the vehicle was running, causing the engine to “rev up” and the exhaust from the vehicle to increase. Id. at 642. Yet, the supreme court concluded that the officers “had no reason to believe that Shane had or was about to take some action that would make the [vehicle] a source of danger,” stating, “[t]he mere act of a known passenger leaning over and touching a vehicle’s gas pedal, without more, is not an action that makes the vehicle a source of danger.” Id. The Shane court said that the circumstances were inadequate to establish “physical control” because Shane did not put himself in a position to move the vehicle. Id. The supreme court noted that Shane did not cause the vehicle to move, did not move to the driver’s seat, did not touch the steering wheel, and did not put the vehicle into gear. Id. Nor was there any evidence that Shane attempted to do those things. Id. Thus, the officers did not have probable cause to believe that Shane was in physical control of the vehicle. Id."

"When compared to the circumstances in Shane, the circumstances here provide even less reason to believe that Leu had taken or was about to take some action to make the truck a danger to herself, others, or property. Like Shane, Leu did not put herself in a position to move the truck, and she did not cause the truck to move. Although Leu moved to the driver’s seat, she did not sit in a position conducive to driving. Instead, she sat facing out the driver’s door with her feet outside of the truck, where they were not in contact with the truck’s gas and brake pedals. Unlike Shane, Leu did not manipulate the gas pedal. Leu operated only the truck’s ignition switch, and she did so only to turn off the truck’s engine. Next, she removed the keys from the truck. Those acts are inconsistent with an attempt to move the truck. Finally, unlike Shane, Leu did not ask for permission to drive the truck. Instead, she attempted to make arrangements for a ride home, and a third party arrived and took custody of the truck before the police officer cleared the scene. When considered in their totality, these circumstances do not suggest that Leu had taken or was about to take some action to make the truck a danger to herself, others, or property."

***

"Because Leu was a known passenger and the totality of the circumstances do not indicate that she had taken or was about to take some action to make the truck a source of danger, there was no probable cause to believe that she was in physical control of the truck. We therefore reverse the commissioner’s revocation of Leu’s license to drive."

Moral Of The Story: Don't ride with a drunk driver.

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 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. Waldron (Decided December 26, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that it is never a good idea to talk to the police.

In Waldron, the defendant approached a house in Hibbing Minnesota looking for held after a single-car crash.  Waldron was injured and smelled of alcohol, and the homeowners summoned emergency assistance. A state trooper was the first emergency worker to arrive. The trooper located the car, which was in a ditch about 40 yards away from the road, and he confirmed that it was unoccupied. Then, the trooper went to the house to meet with Ms. Waldron.

Waldron was lying on the entryway floor, bloodied, and crying, and the homeowners were nearby. The trooper called for an ambulance. When the trooper asked Waldron for her name, she did not respond and moaned in pain. The homeowners told the trooper that Waldron had told them her name and had said her boyfriend was the driver. When the trooper asked Waldron what she had been doing at the time of the crash and whether she had been wearing a seatbelt, Waldron said she was not driving and asked about her boyfriend’s whereabouts. The trooper radioed for assistance in locating the missing boyfriend.

Another officer arrived at the home, and asked Waldron for the name of the boyfriend they should be looking for. This officer asked Waldron whether the boyfriend had been driving. Waldron responded that her boyfriend was not the driver.

Ms. Waldron was taken to a local hospital and her blood was drawn pursuant to a search warrant.  The blood test result revealed an alcohol concentration level of .188%.

The Defendant was charged with DWI and moved to suppress the statements she had made to law enforcement arguing the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.

The district court denied the motion to suppress and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, noting:

"To determine whether an individual was in custody for the purpose of the Miranda requirement, a court should consider the surrounding circumstances. State v. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d 631, 637 (Minn. 2012). Factors suggesting that a person was in custody include:

(1) the police interviewing the suspect at the police station;

(2) the suspect being told he or she is a prime suspect in a crime; (3) the police restraining the suspect[’]s freedom of movement; (4) the suspect making a significantly incriminating statement; (5) the presence of multiple officers; and (6) a gun pointing at the suspect.

State v. Vue, 797 N.W.2d 5, 11 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted). And factors suggesting that an individual was not in custody include brief questioning, a nonthreatening environment, an explicit statement by police that the person is not under arrest, and police allowing the person to make phone calls or leave after they gave their statement. Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d at 637."

"Interrogation is “express questioning or any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.” State v. Heinonen, 909 N.W.2d 584, 589 (Minn. 2018) (quotations omitted). A custodial interrogation occurs when “questioning [is] initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his [or her] freedom of action in any significant way,” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, or “if, based on all the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.” Vue, 797 N.W.2d at 10-11 (quotation omitted); see also Scruggs, 822 N.W.2d at 637."

***

"Based on the district court’s undisputed factual findings, we determine, based on our independent review, that there was no custodial interrogation requiring a Miranda warning. We reach this conclusion for two reasons.

First, considering the surrounding circumstances, Waldron was not in custody when she was questioned. At the outset of Waldron’s encounter with law enforcement—and, indeed, for the majority of that encounter—there was just one law enforcement officer present. The homeowners were also present during the encounter, and they were also interacting with law enforcement. Waldron was not in a police station, jail, or a squad car. She was lying on the floor of a house that she entered on her own initiative. And the responding trooper made clear that medical help had been summoned for Waldron. The questions posed by law enforcement were not accusatory. Rather, they were open-ended attempts to figure out what had happened and whether there was another injured person outside in the cold. The totality of these circumstances indicates that Waldron was not in custody when she made the statements at issue. See Vue, 797 N.W.2d at 11 (instructing district courts to consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding whether an individual is in custody for the purpose of a Miranda warning).

Second, there was no interrogation. Police are not required to give a Miranda warning when engaging in “general on-the-scene questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact-finding process.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477. This includes “on-the-scene questioning” of individuals suspected of driving while under the influence. See Steinberg v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 357 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Minn. App. 1984) (“[U]pon arriving at the scene of an accident an officer need not give a Miranda warning to a person suspected of DWI.”); see also State v. Werner, 725 N.W.2d 767, 769-71 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that asking a DWI suspect about alcohol consumption does not constitute an interrogation); State v. Herem, 384 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Minn. 1986) (observing that an “officer’s subjective intent or . . . belief that defendant was driving under the influence” does not on its own “necessitate a Miranda warning”). Here, law enforcement officers asked Waldron general on-the-scene questions after responding to a serious car accident. These questions did not amount to an interrogation."

"Because there was no custodial interrogation, no Miranda warning was required."

Moral Of The Story: Loose lips sink ships!

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 Ness v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided December 11, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the failure to read verbatim the Minnesota DWI Search Warrant Advisory is not fatal as long as the advisory given is not inaccurate, misleading or confusing.

In Ness, the Petitioner was arrested for driving while impaired and was taken to jail.  The arresting officer asked the Petitioner if he preferred to take a blood or a urine test. The Petitioner responded that the officer was not going to obtain either test from him.

The officer obtained a search warrant authorizing him to procure either a blood or urine sample from appellant. After obtaining the warrant, the officer approached Petitioner's holding cell, stated Petitioner's name, and asked Petitioner to come talk to him. Petitioner was lying down on the cell bed, was wrapped in a blanket with his eyes closed, and did not get up or respond to the officer. The officer informed Petitioner, “as I told you before, I was drafting a search warrant for your blood or urine because of the DWI, and I have a signed search warrant in my hand, and refusing to submit to that search warrant is a crime.” The officer asked Petitioner if he understood. The officer testified that appellant did not respond and was ignoring him, but that at one point Petitioner opened his eyes and looked at him while adjusting his blanket before continuing to ignore him.  The officer asked Petitioner if he was refusing to give the officer a test, to which Petitioner did not reply.

The officer then told Petitioner that he was taking his silence as a refusal, and asked if Petitioner understood. Petitioner again did not reply. The officer informed Petitioner that he was leaving Petitioner a copy of the search warrant but Petitioner's noncompliance with the warrant would be considered a refusal and he would be charged with an additional crime. The officer then issued a Notice and Order Of Revocation of the Petitioner's driver's license.

The Petitioner challenged the revocation of his license asserting that his refusal to submit to testing was not properly obtained.  Petitioner claimed that since the officer failed to read the search warrant advisory statutory language verbatim, and failed to offer both a blood or urine test, the revocation of his license must be rescinded.

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

"Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 4. “At the time a blood or urine test is directed pursuant to a search warrant . . . the person must be informed that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime.” Id., subd. 1. 

"Minnesota Statutes section 171.177, subdivision 2, provides, in part, that:

The peace officer who directs a test pursuant to a search warrant shall direct a blood or urine test as provided in the warrant. If the warrant authorizes either a blood or urine test,     the officer may direct whether the test is of blood or urine. If the person to whom the test is directed objects to the test, the officer shall offer the person an alternative test of either blood or urine.

Action may only be taken against a person who is offered and refuses both a urine test and a blood test. Id., subd. 2."

"This court has determined that the warning requirement under Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, is unambiguous and law enforcement is required to inform a defendant that refusal to submit to a warranted blood or urine test is a crime. State v. Mike, 919 N.W.2d 103,110 (Minn. App. 2018), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 20,2019)."

***

"In Nash, this court considered whether law enforcement provided the search-warrant advisory required under Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, when a state trooper told Nash, “I applied for a search warrant for a blood draw, and refusal to take a test is a crime.” 989 N.W.2d at 706. Even though the warrant also permitted a urine test, the trooper did not mention the possibility of a urine test, and Nash did not have an opportunity to read the warrant before agreeing to the blood test. Id. at 710. We concluded that “the advisory informed Nash that he could be charged with a crime if he refused the blood test, even though the trooper had not offered Nash an alternative urine test. That was an inaccurate statement of law and misleading,” and could not be a basis for Nash’s license revocation. Id. at 710-11. We held that if a search-warrant advisory deviates from the exact wording of Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, it “is insufficient to sustain the revocation of a person’s driving privileges if it is an inaccurate statement of law, misleading, or confusing when considered in its context as a whole.” 

"Although here the officer’s search-warrant advisory did not comply with the exact wording of Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1, Nash supports that a deviation is only problematic if it is an inaccurate statement of law, misleading, or confusing in its context. 989 N.W.2d at 711. Here, the officer’s advisory was legally accurate and properly advised appellant of the consequences of his refusal. The officer testified that at the jail and prior to applying for a search warrant, he asked appellant whether he preferred a blood or urine test, to which appellant responded that he would provide neither. After applying for and receiving a search warrant, the officer told appellant that he had obtained a signed search warrant for appellant’s blood or urine, and that refusing to submit to the search warrant was a crime."

"The plain language of subdivision 2 does not require law enforcement to separately direct the tests. A peace officer who directs a test “shall direct a blood or urine test as provided in the warrant,” and if the warrant authorizes both, the peace officer “may direct whether the test is ofblood or urine.” Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 2 (emphasis added). If a person objects to one test, the peace officer shall offer the other test. Id. The statute does not prohibit a peace officer from simultaneously offering a urine or a blood test. “Action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a blood test only if a urine test was offered and action may be taken against a person who refuses to take a urine test only if a blood test was offered.” Id. Here, the officer testified to offering both types of tests to appellant before the officer obtained a search warrant. After obtaining the warrant, the officer again indicated to appellant that both tests were authorized by the search warrant before informing appellant that refusal to comply with the search warrant was a crime. The officer therefore complied with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 2."

Moral Of The Story: Close enough for government work. 

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.