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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Smith (Decided October 24, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police do not have to PROVE you were speeding in order to justify a vehicle stop. The officer just has to "believe" you were speeding. Yikes!

In Smith, Officer Robert Weir of the St. Paul Police Department had just completed an unrelated traffic stop when he observed the Defendant's vehicle.  Officer Weir visually estimated that the Defendant's car was traveling at 45 miles per hour in a 30-miles-per-hour zone.  Officer Weir then followed the vehicle and noted that when his squad car reached a speed of 40 mph, he still was not gaining on the Defendant's vehicle.  The officer then stopped the Defendant and Mr. Smith was subsequently arrested for DWI.

The Defendant moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing in the district court that the stop was illegal.  At the district court hearing, Officer Weier testified that he had been trained in visual estimation of vehicle speeds and could visually estimate speed to within five miles per hour. Appellant testified that he had been driving under the speed limit and argued that the squad video, coupled with mathematical computations concerning time and distance, proves that he was not speeding before the stop. The district court denied appellant's motion to suppress, relying on Sergeant Weier's testimony to conclude that the stop was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.

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

"Here, appellant argues that Sergeant Weier mistakenly determined appellant to have been driving 45 miles per hour: a mistake of fact. A mistake of fact does not invalidate a traffic stop so long as that mistake is reasonable. See State v. Johnson, 392 NW.2d 685, 687 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding that mistaken identity did not render a stop invalid). An officer who visually estimates the excessive speed of a car, and is able to corroborate his estimate by following that car, has a reasonable and articulable suspicion of a traffic violation. Even if appellant can now demonstrate that he was not speeding (which we need not determine for reasonable-suspicion purposes), Sergeant Weier's suspicion that appellant was speeding was reasonable and sufficient to support a stop."

The problem with today's ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals is this, how can the officer's mistake be "reasonable" if the scientific evidence shows the officer was wrong?  Police are human and some of them lie to justify their actions.  When science shows the police officer 's claim is untrue the Courts should act to protect a citizen's right to be left alone.

MORAL OF THE STORY: If you have been drinking, don't even think about speeding!!

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week Is State v. DeRoche (Decided October 17, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that just about any suspicion by a police officer will be deemed "reasonable" to justify a stop of a motor vehicle.

In DeRoche, the police officer observed appellant driving his vehicle in the early morning hours on a frontage road in a commercial area near a trailer dealership. The officer was aware that the trailer dealership had been burglarized in the past one or two months, and other commercial properties in the area had experienced thefts. The officer observed appellant drive from the frontage road onto a private driveway, 10-15 feet past a sign reading "Private Property. No Trespassing." The vacant property, which occasionally hosts a flea market, is adjacent to the trailer dealership. Appellant's vehicle sat in the driveway for one to two minutes. The area was dark and unlit. When the officer approached in a marked squad to investigate, appellant backed out of the private drive to turn around, and the officer stopped appellant. 

The district court upheld the validity of the stop and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, stating:

"Based on these circumstances and rational inferences drawn from them, an officer could reasonably suspect appellant of committing property crimes of nearby businesses. This reasonable suspicion justified the officer's stop of appellant's vehicle."

Seriously?

At least Justice Ross had the good sense to dissent from the majority decision as he correctly notes:

"Reasonable suspicion is a low standard. But it is a standard of some degree. If driving briefly just onto a vacant lot somewhere near a different lot where a theft occurred "maybe a month or two" earlier allows police to force a stop for a police investigation, then the standard is virtually meaningless. I respectfully dissent because we must distinguish between a mere "hunch" (undeveloped, vague speculation), which can never justify a police stop, and reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur, which does justify a police stop. This is a pure-hunch case."

MORAL OF THE STORY: If you are out late at night, don't get lost as you are likely to be pulled over by the police!

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

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Hall (Decided September 6, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the open doorway to your home is not a constitutionally protected area.

In Hall, the Defendant's neighbor saw the Defendant drive his car at a high rate of speed on their residential street. The neighbor walked over to the Defendant's home and they had an altercation.  The neighbor called the police, who then went to the Defendant's home and knocked on the front door.  

The Defendant answered the door and when he spoke to the police the officer noted that the Defendant's eyes were bloodshot, he smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred and he held onto the front door to keep his balance.  The police officer never entered the home but spoke to the Defendant from the front porch.

The Defendant told the officer that he had just come home from a bar and had driven past the complaining-neighbor's house. Based upon the Defendant's condition and statements, officer believed the Defendant had been driving while intoxicated.

The officer then asked the Defendant to come out of his house to perform some field sobriety tests; Defendant said it was his house and the officer should not be there. The officer said he did not want to have to come in and get Defendant, but would do so if necessary, and that Defendant would be arrested for DWI in any event. 

Defendant then came out of the house and attempted to perform the field sobriety tests. He failed a preliminary breath test (PBT). The officer determined that he had probable cause to arrest Defendant and arrested him. Defendant was taken to a police station, where the implied consent advisory was read to him, and he provided a breath sample; it indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.19.

The Defendant was charged with misdemeanor DWI but he moved to suppress all of the evidence on the grounds he had been illegally seized from his residence.  The District Court agreed with the Defendant and ruled that the seizure was not lawful because the Defendant was "coerced and threatened into leaving the sanctuary of his house".

It is well established in Minnesota that the police may not enter a home to make a misdemeanor arrest unless they are "in hot pursuit" of a suspect but that was not the case here.  In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court because there was no "entry" into the residence.  Or as stated by the Court of Appeals:

"Here, the officer knocked and remained on the porch while he talked to defendant. There was no "warrantless entry of  a family residence" because the officer stood in the open doorway"..."For Fourth-Amendment purposes, an open doorway is a public place. United States v. Santana, All U.S. 38, 42, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 2409 (1976). A defendant who is in a public place when officers initiate an arrest may not thwart the arrest by retreating into his residence. Id. at 43, 96 S. Ct. at 2410. Defendant opened the door of his house to the police officer and, while they were in the open doorway, gave the officer probable cause to arrest him by displaying several indicia of intoxication and admitting that he had just driven home from a bar where he had been drinking. Having done these things, Defendant had no right to thwart his arrest by retreating into his house. See id. at 42-43, 96 S. Ct. at 2409-10 (stating that a defendant's "act of retreating into her house could [not] thwart an otherwise proper arrest" and concluding that the officer's following the defendant into her house was "hot pursuit" and justified his warrantless entry). If Defendant had retreated into his house and the officer, without a warrant, had followed him, the warrantless entry of Defedant's house would have been justified."

MORAL OF THE STORY: A man's home is not his castle until he shuts the door!

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.

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

The Minnesota DUI Case Of The Week is State v. Halverson, which stands for the proposition that if the registered owner of a vehicle has a driver's license that is revoked, the police may stop the vehicle even if they do not know who is driving as long as the police do not have information which is inconsistent with the physical  description of the owner.

In Halverson. the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department received a call on June 27, 2014 at 6:45 p.m.  The caller  reported that a blue BMW with license plates 145-GMG was driving extremely slowly and weaving all over the road.  The police responded to the call and eventually found the vehicle, unoccupied,  parked in a parking lot.  The police ran a computer check and found that the vehicle was registered to the defendant and that her license was revoked.

Two hours later, the police saw the vehicle leave the parking lot and they initiated a traffic stop of the automobile.  The Defendant was behind the wheel and she smelled of alcohol.  She subsequently failed some field sobriety tests and was arrested for DWI.

The Defendant filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence alleging that the initial stop was unconstitutional.  The district court ruled that the stop was lawful and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, noting:

"State v. Pike is dispositive of the issue in this case. 551 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. 1996). In Pike, an officer observed a vehicle traveling at a low speed, became suspicious, ran a computer check, and discovered that the registered owner of the vehicle had a revoked driver's license. Id. at 921. The officer observed that the driver of the vehicle was a man who appeared to be in the same age category as the registered owner and stopped the vehicle. Id. at 920-21."

"The supreme court held that 'it is not unconstitutional for an officer to make a brief, investigatory, Terry-type stop of a vehicle if the officer knows that the owner of the vehicle has a revoked license so long as the officer remains unaware of any facts which would render unreasonable an assumption that the owner is driving the vehicle.' Id. at 922. The supreme court reasoned that '[w]hen an officer observes a vehicle being driven, it is rational for him or her to infer that the owner of the vehicle is the current operator." Id. However, such an inference would be unreasonable when, for example, the officer knows "that the owner is a 22-year-old male, and the officer observes that the person driving the vehicle is a 50- or 60-year-old woman.' Id."

"Halverson contends that the facts of this case fall within the Pike exception. Halverson argues that "[u]nlike the officer in Pike, Rosati did not have any information about the appearance of either the earlier or later driver to create the reasonable inference that the revoked registered owner was the driver." She further argues that "without this information, any reasonable suspicion that the driver was the primary owner with a revoked license evaporated.'"

"Halverson misconstrues Pike's holding. Pike does not require an officer to observe or otherwise confirm that a driver's physical appearance is consistent with that of the vehicle's registered owner before stopping the vehicle based on the owner's revoked status. To the contrary, '[w]hen an officer observes a vehicle being driven, it is rational for him or her to infer that the owner of the vehicle is the current operator.' Id. Thus, Officer Rosati's failure to observe the driver's appearance before stopping the vehicle does not invalidate the stop."

Moral Of The Story:  If your license is revoked, don't take a bad situation worse by drinking and getting behind the wheel!

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

  

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Stoneburner v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided August 8, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police do not have to prove that you were speeding in order to stop you for speeding.

In Stoneburner, Cold Spring-Richmond police officer Christi Hoffman, (who had more than twelve years of law-enforcement experience), was on patrol in the city of Richmond, Minnesota. Hoffman was traveling eastbound when she noticed a westbound car on Highway 23 that she estimated was traveling over the posted 50-mile-per-hour speed limit. Hoffman activated her squad car radar unit to confirm her visual observation. The target car was about one-half mile away at that point, which is within the radar-unit range. The radar unit showed speeds of 62, 61, and 60, at which point she locked the display, confirming her visual estimate of speed. Hoffman stopped the car, which was driven by appellant Robert David Stoneburner.

After noticing some indicia of intoxication, the officer had Mr. Stoneburner perform some field sobriety tests which, according to the officer, he failed.  Mr. Stoneburner was placed under arrest and subsequently submitted to a breath test which revealed an alcohol concentration level in excess of .08.

Mr. Stoneburner challenged the revocation of his driver's license challenging Hoffman's ability to make a visual estimate of speed and primarily claiming that the radar device had not been properly calibrated because Hoffman testified that she performed only a limited internal calibration test, and not an external calibration measurement.

The district court sustained Stoneburner's license revocation, concluding that Hoffman had a reasonable and articulable basis for stopping Stoneburner's car based on her visual observation of speed.  

On Appeal, Stoneburner argued that the radar evidence did not provide a particularized and objective basis for the stop because Hoffman did not comply with Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 10(a) (2014). This section states that "[i]n any prosecution in which the rate of speed of a motor vehicle is relevant" radar evidence is admissible if (1) the officer has been trained to operate the device; (2) the officer can describe how the device was set up and operated; (3) there was only minimal interference or distortion in the surrounding environment; and (4) the device was subject to testing by an external method that is accurate and reliable. Stoneburner argued that Hoffman did not testify about a reliable external testing mechanism and, therefore, she had no particularized and objective basis for the stop.

The Court of Appeals rejected Stoneburner's argument and affirmed the district court stating, "Minnesota courts have approved the use of visual speed estimation when the witness has an opportunity to observe the subject vehicle and has experience with estimating the speed of moving vehicles, particularly when the witness, like Hoffman, has years of law-enforcement experience and training." And, "...the issue here is not whether the state or the commissioner can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stoneburner was exceeding the speed limit prior to the stop; the issue is whether Hoffman had a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting" that Stoneburner was violating the law."

In this case, "Hoffman testified to specific facts that led her to conclude that Stoneburner was violating the law: she visually observed a car that appeared to be exceeding the speed limit; she had received training in estimating the speed of moving vehicles; and her radar unit, even if not properly calibrated, confirmed her visual observation. The district court found that Hoffman was a credible witness. Because these facts provided a basis for a brief investigatory stop, the district court did not err by determining that the stop was lawful."

Moral of The Story: If you even look guilty, the police can stop you!

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

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided July 25, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police will "tailor" their testimony to avoid the impact of a previous appellate court decision.

In this case, Mr. Frank was driving his pickup truck in Crow Wing County at approximately 12:35 a.m.  A police officer was driving his squad in the opposite direction and as the two vehicle approached each other, Mr. Frank flashed his bright lights, "very briefly". The police officer then turned around and stopped Mr. Frank, who was subsequently arrested for DWI.

Mr. Frank challenged the validity of the stop of his vehicle in a license revocation hearing but the district court upheld the revocation.  

Minn. Stat. § 169.61(b) provides that, "[w]hen the driver of a vehicle approaches a vehicle within 1,000 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light, or composite beam, so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver." But in Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 819 N.W.2d 465 at 471-472 (Minn. App. 2012) the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the statute, "Does not prohibit drivers from momentarily flashing their high beams at oncoming traffic, so long as the flashing is brief and conducted in such a manner that it does not blind or impair other drivers." 

So what did the officer testify to in this case?  The officer testified "that appellant's headlights were 'extremely bright,' to the extent that they 'literally just about blinded [him].' The officer testified that he pulled onto the shoulder and stopped because he was blinded by appellant's headlights. 

RIGHT! The problem is the district court bought the officer's testimony and on appeal, the appellate court will not reverse a finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous as the appellate court is not in any position to judge the credibility of a witness.

Moral Of The Story: Be careful who you flash!

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Puro v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided July 5, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which contains a good discussion of "physical control".

In Puro, the Appellant went to a restaurant and began consuming alcohol.  Around 4:00 p.m., the bartender asked Mr. Puro to leave because he was getting rowdy from having had too much to drink.  Mr. Puro left the restaurant and made his way to his wife's Subaru which was parked in the restaurant's parking lot.  Mr. Puro fell asleep in the car and was subsequently discovered by the police.

The officer approached the Subaru and tapped on the window to try to wake up Mr. Puro who was sitting in the driver's seat but the engine was not running.  Mr. Puro appeared startled and subsequently opened the car door to speak to the officer.  The keys to the vehicle were located on the floor beneath the feet of Mr. Puro.

Mr. Puro was arrested for DWI and he challenged the revocation of his driver's license arguing that the police did not have probable cause to believe he was "in physical control" of a motor vehicle.  The district court concluded that the state proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Puro was in physical control and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed, stating:

"Under Minnesota's implied-consent law, the state may revoke a person's license if he is in physical control of a vehicle in order to "deter intoxicated persons from getting into vehicles except as passengers and to act as a preventive measure to enable the drunken driver to be apprehended before he strikes." State v. Fleck, 111 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted). The term "in physical control" includes "when an intoxicated person is found in a parked vehicle under circumstances in which the vehicle, without too much difficulty, might again be started and become a source of danger to the operator, to others, or to property." Id. (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted). A person is in physical control of a vehicle if the person has the means to initiate any movement and is close to the operating controls of the vehicle."

"But a person is not in physical control when the person has 'relinquished control of the vehicle to a designated driver."'Id. And presence in the vehicle by itself is not enough to show physical control. Id. This court examines the overall situation to make the determination, which includes the examination of a number of factors "including: the person's location in proximity to the vehicle; the location of the keys; whether the person was a passenger in the vehicle; who owned the vehicle; and the vehicle's operability." Id. Whether a person intends to drive is not part of the analysis in determining if the person was in physical control."

"Here, the officer found Puro alone, intoxicated, and asleep or passed out in the legally parked and operable Subaru. Puro, like Fleck, was in the driver's seat. The keys, which were on the floor between his feet, were readily accessible to him. He could have picked up the keys, started the vehicle, and tried to drive home." Therefore, the district court was correct in finding that Mr. Puro was in physical control of a motor vehicle.

Moral Of The Story: If you have been drinking, do not get into a car except as a passenger!!

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