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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Berger (Decided December 14, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that field sobriety tests are not, in themselves, sufficient to justify a conviction for DWI.

In Berger, the Defendant was stopped by the police for leaving a public park after closing.  The officer spoke with Berger and noticed he had bloodshot eyes and smelled faintly of alcohol and marijuana.  A preliminary breath test of Mr. Berger revealed zero alcohol in his system.  The officer did not suspect Mr. Berger of being under the influence and he was released. The officer did arrest one of Berger's passengers as there was a warrant for the passenger's arrest.

When the officer arrived at the jail, Mr. Berger was already there to pick up the passenger after posting bond.  At that point, the officer was notified that Mr. Berger had a previous arrest in Iowa for possession of LSD and pills. The officer then decided to further investigate Mr. Berger.

The officer again talked to Mr. Berger and noticed his skin was flushed and his eyes appeared bloodshot and dilated.  The officer then administered three standard field sobriety tests: the modified Romberg test,  the walk-and-tum, and the one-leg stand. The officer also checked Berger’s pulse and pupil dilation.  After observing Berger’s performance on the field sobriety tests, the officer concluded that Berger failed each one and placed Berger under arrest.  A blood sample was then taken from Berger. The results of the test indicated the presence of THC, a controlled substance in Minnesota. 

Berger was charged with fourth-degree driving while under the influence of a controlled substance. Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(2) (2018). Instead of proceeding to trial, Berger agreed to a stipulated-facts trial and was convicted of the offense.

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

"When, as in this case, a conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, this court conducts a two-step analysis to determine whether the evidence supports a guilty verdict. State v. Silvernail, 831 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Minn. 2013). First, this court identifies the circumstances proved by viewing any conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. Then we determine whether the circumstances proved are consistent with the verdict of guilt and inconsistent with any other rational conclusion except that of guilt. Id. at 599. It is not enough that circumstances or inferences pointing to guilt are reasonable. Id. Guilt must be the only rational hypothesis this court can reach based on the proved circumstances. Id."

"Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and taking into account the stipulated facts agreed to by the parties, we conclude that the following circumstances were proved. Officer Beck conducted a stop when he saw Berger’s car leaving a closed park. Officer Beck did not observe any traffic violations or poor driving prior to stopping Berger. During the stop, Officer Beck observed that Berger had bloodshot eyes and smelled faintly of alcohol and marijuana. Officer Beck also administered a preliminary breath test, which resulted in an alcohol concentration of 0.00. Because Officer Beck did not believe Berger was under the influence at that time, he released Berger. Later, while talking to Berger at the jail, Officer Beck observed that Berger had flushed skin, bloodshot eyes, and dilated pupils. After administering the field sobriety tests, Officer Beck determined that Berger failed each one. Finally, Berger’s blood test confirmed the presence of THC on the day of his arrest."

"Moving to the second step in our analysis, we must determine whether the circumstances proved above are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis except guilt."

"In instances where courts have found sufficient evidence of driving while under the influence, stops were typically triggered by a vehicle collision or traffic violation, which demonstrated that the driver lacked that “clearness of intellect and control.”

***

"Erratic or aggressive driving has also often led to individuals being stopped on suspicion of driving while under the influence..."

***

"In sum, in cases where convictions for driving under the influence have been upheld, observable traffic violations or aggressive, poor driving generally preceded the stop and provided evidence that the driver was, indeed, driving under the influence."

"In contrast, in State v. Elmourabit, where the state relied primarily on outward manifestations of intoxication observed after the stop, the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that the proof fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 373 N.W.2d 290, 291 (Minn. 1985). In Elmourabit, the respondent was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Id. The district court relied on evidence that the respondent had been speeding, smelled of alcohol when stopped by police, had glassy and bloodshot eyes, was difficult to understand, and became aggressive multiple times during his interaction with police to support its guilty verdict. Id. at 291. But the supreme court concluded that “[t]he inferences to be draw from this evidence, however, are in somewhat uneasy equilibrium,” and led the court to decide that this proof fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 293-94."

"Guided by this case law, we conclude that the circumstances proved here are inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of guilt. Silvemail, 831 N.W.2d at 599. Nothing in Officer Beck’s report suggests that Berger was driving poorly, violated any traffic laws, or acted out of the norm in any other substantive way."

"In reaching this conclusion, the supreme court’s decision in State v. Elmourabit is particularly instructive. 373 N.W.2d at 290. The circumstances in Berger’s case are less compelling than in Elmourabit. He was not stopped by Officer Beck because of poor driving, but because he was leaving a park at a time that it would normally be closed. Berger did not exhibit any aggressive behavior. Officer Beck did not suspect that Berger was under the influence during the stop and released him. Nor was Berger’s condition at the jail different from what Officer Beck had encountered shortly before when he decided to release Berger. Finally, although Berger was determined to have failed three of the field sobriety tests, we are mindful to avoid placing “too much significance” on field sobriety tests."

Moral Of The Story: If you have been released by the police, do not give them a second bite at the apple!

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 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. Rodriguez (Decided March 19, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if you are convicted of a DWI, the appellate court will rarely, if ever, reverse on a claim that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

In Rodriguez, Deputy Robbins of the Steele County Sheriff's Department saw the Defendant driving a car in Owatonna.  Deputy Robbins ran Rodriguez's driver's license and saw that it had been cancelled. After Rodriguez pulled his car to the side of the road, Deputy Robbins placed him under arrest for driving after cancellation.  Robbins placed Rodriguez in the squad car and smelled the odor of alcohol on his breath. After a short time in the back of the squad car, Rodriguez began to antagonize the deputy.

Robbins placed Rodriguez in the squad car and smelled the odor of alcohol on his breath. After a short time in the back of the squad car, Rodriguez began to antagonize the deputy.

Once Deputy Robbins arrived at the detention center, he asked Rodriguez to perform field sobriety tests. Rodriguez refused. Deputy Robbins explained at trial that at that point Rodriguez was also under arrest for DWI. Deputy Robbins based that decision on the odor of alcohol on Rodriguez's breath, Rodriguez's belligerent attitude, and Rodriguez's refusal to perform field sobriety tests. Deputy Robbins read Rodriguez the implied-consent advisory, and Rodriguez asked repeatedly if he was being ordered to submit to a chemical test. Deputy Robbins explained that it was Rodriguez's decision whether or not to submit to the test. After Rodriguez continued to ask whether he was being ordered to submit, Deputy Robbins told Rodriguez that he was considering him to have refused the test. 

Mr. Rodriguez was charged with DWI-test refusal and driving after cancellation and was subsequently convicted of both charges by a jury.  On appeal, Mr. Rodriguez argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove that deputy Robbins had probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence, an element of the refusal crime.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected the contention stating:

"When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence after conviction, this court reviews the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict. State v. Scanlon, 719 NW.2d 674, 687 (Minn. 2006). It is a crime for a person to refuse to submit to a chemical test when an officer has probable cause to believe that the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and the person is arrested for DWI."

"When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence after conviction, this court reviews the record to determine whether the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, were sufficient to allow the jury to reach its verdict. State v. Scanlon, 719 NW.2d 674, 687 (Minn. 2006). It is a crime for a person to refuse to submit to a chemical test when an officer has probable cause to believe that the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired, and the person is arrested for DWI."

"Deputy Robbins testified that he believed Rodriguez was intoxicated because of the odor of alcohol on his breath, his belligerent attitude, and his refusal to perform field sobriety tests. We assume that the jury believed Deputy Robbins' testimony. See State v. Moore, 438 NW.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). Deputy Robbins needed only one objective indication of intoxication to believe that Rodriguez was under the influence of alcohol, but he cited three, and no evidence contradicted his testimony.The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Deputy Robbins had probable cause to believe that Rodriguez had been operating a motor vehicle while impaired."

The problem I have with the court's language is that it is only true that the police need a single objective indication of intoxication to have probable cause "where there has been an accident".  If there has been an accident, then the accident itself furnishes a reason to believe the person may have been impaired.  In that situation, a single additional factor of intoxication is then all you need to have probable cause to arrest. 

In the present case, there wasn't any accident. So the Appellate Court's language that a single indication of intoxication is sufficient to find probable cause is just nonsense.

Moral Of The Story:  If you go to trial, don't lose!

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

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. Clark (Decided September 11, 2017, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you do not have to be found inside your vehicle to be convicted of a Minnesota DWI.

In Clark, a woman was driving with her husband in the early morning hours of January 7, 2015.  They saw the Defendant, Anthony Clark, walking down the middle of the road straight at her vehicle and waving his hands in the air. They slowed down to speak with the Defendant, who appeared delusional, hurt, and in need of help. The woman called 911 to report the situation and as they continued they also noticed a vehicle in the ditch about 6 feet beyond where Defendant was walking and associated the vehicle with Defendant. It was very cold outside and had recently snowed. The woman and her husband did not see anyone else around.  They were unable to stay at the scene, but others arrived to help.

Another individual allowed the Defendant to sit in his vehicle until help arrived.  Officer Miguel Guadalajara and Officer Patrick Sloan arrived separately at the scene shortly after starting their early morning shifts. Officer Sloan saw the vehicle in the ditch and parked his squad car on the road north of the vehicle.

Officer Guadalajara also observed the vehicle in the ditch and did not see anyone by the vehicle. He parked his squad car on the road south of the vehicle in the ditch. As he approached the vehicles parked on the road ahead, he saw footprints around the vehicle in the ditch. He saw a set of footprints with the same tread outside the driver's side door of the vehicle in the ditch and leading from the driver's side up toward the vehicle occupied by the Defendant.  The officer noticed the Defendant had bloodshot, watery eyes and smelled of an alcoholic beverage.

Officer Guadalajara advised Defendant that they believed he drove the vehicle into the ditch and that he was intoxicated while driving. He gave Defendant a preliminary breath test, which registered an alcohol concentration of 0.183. Defendant was placed under arrest on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI) and read the implied-consent advisory. When asked to submit to a breath test, the Defendant refused.  The Defendant was then charged with First Degree Refusal to Submit to Testing (Felony refusal due to his prior DWI record).

At trial, Officer Sloan testified that he believed that appellant was the driver of the vehicle in the ditch. He observed footprints in the recently fallen snow around the general vicinity of the driver's side door and testified that it looked like only one person had come from the vehicle. He located the vehicle's keys inside the vehicle, but not in the ignition. He found a backpack in the backseat containing appellant's cell phone and papers and effects with appellant's name on them. He also located 5-Hour Energy drinks in the front passenger seat, the same type that he found on appellant during the pat-down. Officer Guadalajara testified that he found a 5-Hour Energy drink in the back of his squad car after appellant got out of the car at the police department.  

The jury found the Defendant guilty of felony refusal and on appeal, he claimed the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the conviction, noting:

"In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, this court's review is limited to a thorough analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the conviction, is sufficient to allow the jurors to reach the verdict that they did.(citation omitted)".

"Appellant argues on appeal that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that appellant was in physical control of the vehicle in the ditch because appellant was found walking down the road; no one saw him in the vehicle or in the driver's seat; the vehicle was immobile in a snowy ditch; no one saw the vehicle go into the ditch; and the keys were found in the vehicle but not in the ignition."

"In viewing the evidence here in the light most favorable to the conviction, and assuming that the jury believed the state's witnesses, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that Officers Sloan and Guadalajara observed or had information that: (1) there was an immobile vehicle in a snowy ditch on the side of Barnes road in a rural location; (2) it was a very cold day and had recently snowed; (3) witnesses reported a man in need of help walking in the road in close proximity to the vehicle in the ditch; (4) no one saw the vehicle go into the ditch or saw anyone in the vehicle; (5) no one saw anyone other than appellant near the vehicle; (6) appellant exhibited signs of hypothermia and indicia of intoxication when the officers arrived; (7) there were footprints that looked like they came from the same person in front of the vehicle in the ditch and leading from its driver's side up to M.G.'s vehicle, where appellant was sitting when the officers arrived; (8) the keys were located inside the unlocked vehicle in the ditch but were not in the ignition; (9) a backpack in the backseat of the vehicle contained appellant's cell phone, as well as papers and effects with his name on them; and (10) 5-Hour Energy drinks were found in the front passenger seat of the vehicle, on appellant's person during a pat-down search, and in the back of Officer Guadalajara's squad car after appellant got out of it at the police department."

"The evidence presented at trial supports the conclusion that a reasonable officer in this situation would have entertained an honest and strong suspicion that appellant had the means to initiate the vehicle's movement despite its immobility, and was in a position to exercise dominion or control over the vehicle at any time, so as to establish probable cause that appellant was in physical control. Thus, there was sufficient evidence in the record for the jury to reasonably conclude that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that appellant was in physical control of the motor vehicle, as required to find appellant guilty of first-degree test refusal."

If you or a loved one have been arrested for 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 questions.

Minneapolis DWI Attorney Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided June 13, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police do not need to see you drive, operate or physically control a motor vehicle for your license to be revoked for DWI.

In Raskovich, Shakopee police officers responded to a report of a drunk and disorderly patron at a hair salon. The salon owner identified the patron as Jodie Raskovich.  The officers approached Ms. Kaskovich as she left the salon and observed indicia of intoxication.  Ms. Raskovich admitted she had consumed "a couple" of drinks at lunch before driving to the salon and denied consuming any alcohol after she arrived to have her hair done.  Ms. Raskovich was eventually arrested and submitted to testing which yielded a breath alcohol result of .195.

Ms. Raskovich challenged the revocation of her license but the revocation was sustained by the district court. On appeal, she argued that the evidence was insufficient to justify the revocation of her license. The Minnesota Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the revocation, stating:

"In a judicial review hearing for a driver's license revocation under the implied-consent statute, the commissioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that license revocation is appropriate." Axelberg, 831 N.W.2d at 684. License revocation is appropriate only if the arresting officer had probable cause to believe that the petitioner was driving while impaired. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.51, subd. 1 (providing that peace officer may invoke implied-consent law on probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired)), .53, subd. 3(b) (providing that scope of implied-consent hearing includes question, "Did the peace officer have probable cause to believe the person was driving, operating, or in physical control of a motor vehicle ... in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while impaired)?") (2014). Such probable cause exists "whenever there are facts and circumstances known to the officer which would warrant a prudent man in believing that the individual was driving or was operating or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired." State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted)."

Here the officer testified that Raskovich admitted drinking before driving to the salon and she denied drinking after she arrived. The officer also found Ms. Raskovich's vehicle in the parking lot of the salon. "We conclude that the facts and circumstances known to the officer would warrant a prudent person to believe that Raskovich was driving a vehicle while impaired and that the testimony, therefore, is sufficient to affirm the revocation of her license".

Moral Of The Story:  It is never a good idea to talk to the police.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for 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 questions.