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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Chrismen (Decided November 4, 2024, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that the Court of Appeals will rarely reverse the lower court if it refused to grant a downward departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

In Chrismen, the Defendant plea guilty to a felony DWI and was facing a 42-month presumptive prison sentence. The Defendant moved for a downward dispositional departure arguing he was particularly amenable to probation given his remorse and the positive steps he had taken since the offense occurred. Chrismen emphasized that the pre-sentence investigation report noted he “would be a good candidate for sobriety in the community” and that he had only two speeding tickets and no criminal offenses in over 20 years.

The state opposed Chrismen’s motion (of course), arguing that this was not Chrismen’s first felony DWI offense, Chrismen’s claimed participation in treatment was unverified, and there was no support for Chrismen’s assertion that he is amenable to probation.

The District Court, at sentencing, noted it had reviewed all the materials and acknowledged the struggles Chrismen has overcome, but noted concerns about the violent act towards the deputy and the possibility that similar violence could occur if Chrismen was intoxicated. The district court found that Chrismen was not particularly amenable to probation and sentenced him to serve the presumptive term of 42 months in prison with five years of conditional release.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:

"A mitigating factor that may provide a substantial and compelling reason for departure is a defendant’s particular amenability to probation. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (2022); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn 2006). Whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation depends on various factors, including the defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of family and friends. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). But even if some of these factors exist, a district court need not grant a downward dispositional departure. State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Minn. App. 2009). "

***

"We will only reverse a district court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive sentence in the 'rare' case. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981)."

***

"The record demonstrates that the district court carefully considered the arguments both for and against a downward dispositional departure, as well as other information in the record like the presentence investigation report and materials that addressed Chrismen’s record on probation, motivation to change, and remorse. And while we recognize the positive steps Chrismen has taken since his DWI conviction, this is not the 'rare' case that requires us to reverse the district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 7. The abuse-of-discretion standard gives the district court broad discretion in its sentencing decisions and we will 'not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.' State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted)."

Moral Of The Story: If you don't win at the district court, the Court of Appeals is not going to help you.

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

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Lang (Decided October 21, 2025, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police may expand a traffic stop to investigate a possible DWI if the police action is reasonably related to the circumstances arising from the stop. 

In Lang, the Defendant was stopped by the police for failing to signal a lane change. The officer who stopped the Defendant recognized her and knew that Ms. Lang had a history of drug-related criminal activity. The officer directed Lang out of her vehicle and then questioned her about where she was traveling and her plans for the day. While speaking with Lang, the officer observed her to have “excited” behavior, facial twitching, dilated pupils, and dry lips. Based on his training and experience, the officer recognized these as indicia of recent methamphetamine use. The officer questioned Lang about her drug use. Lang responded that she had not used methamphetamine since March 2022. She agreed to perform field sobriety tests, after which the officer informed Lang that he believed that she had used methamphetamine more recently. After she admitted to smoking methamphetamine four days earlier, the officer arrested Lang.

The State of Minnesota charged Lang with one count of fourth-degree DWI (body contains any amount of schedule I/II drugs) and one count of fourth-degree DWI (under the influence of a controlled substance), in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(2), (7). Lang moved to suppress all the evidence obtained from the traffic stop arguing (among other things) the expansion of the stop was unlawful because the officer had no reasonable suspicion that Lang was driving while under the influence of a controlled substance. The District Court denied the defense motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court stating:

"First, Lang argues that the officer expanded the scope of the stop by ordering her out of her vehicle without articulating safety concerns. We are not persuaded. An “officer may order a driver out of a lawfully stopped vehicle without an articulated reason.” Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 367 (citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 (1977)). This is so because such an additional intrusion is de minimis. Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111. Accordingly, the officer did not expand the traffic stop by asking Lang to step out of her vehicle."

"Second, Lang contends that the officer expanded the scope of the stop by asking her and her passenger “general investigative” questions and extended the duration of the stop by questioning her passenger. An officer expands the scope of a stop if they engage in investigative questioning unrelated to the purpose of the stop and without reasonable, articulable suspicion of other criminal activity. See State v. Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415, 418-19 (Minn. 2003) (concluding no reasonable suspicion to expand a traffic stop for speeding and a cracked windshield to include questions about drugs and weapons); Sargent, 968 N. W.2d at 40-42 (holding that questions about pretrial release conditions were questions about noncriminal activity unrelated to a traffic stop). But an officer may “ask the driver about [their] destination and the reason for the trip” during a routine traffic stop. State v. Syhavong, 661 N.W.2d 278, 281 (Minn. App. 2003). That is the situation here. Once the officer had ordered Lang out of the car, he proceeded to ask her questions about how she knew her passenger and where they were heading for the day. The officer then asked the passenger the same questions. We conclude that the officer’s initial questioning of Lang and her passenger falls within the scope of the “reason for the trip,” and did not expand the scope of the stop. Id."

"To the extent that Lang argues that the officer’s questioning of her passenger extended the duration of the stop, as we discuss below, the record demonstrates that the officer had reasonable suspicion that Lang was under the influence of methamphetamine before speaking to the passenger. In other words, the officer had a valid basis to continue to detain Lang during the passenger’s brief questioning. State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125, 135 (Minn. 2002) (“Law enforcement may continue the detention as long as the reasonable suspicion for the detention remains provided they act diligently and reasonably.” (quotation omitted))."

"Third, Lang argues that the officer impermissibly expanded the scope of the stop by continuing to question her about drug use after returning her license and registration and by administering field sobriety tests. This argument is unavailing. The officer testified that he observed “possible signs of impairment” early on, while speaking with Lang about what she was doing for the day. He described Lang as exhibiting “excited” behavior, very dry lips, dilated pupils, and facial tremors. Based on his experience and training, the officer recognized these as signs of possible drug use. The district court expressly found this testimony reliable. One “objective indicator of intoxication” can constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is under the influence. Otto v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 924 N.W.2d 658, 661 (Minn. App. 2019) (quotation omitted). This record persuades us that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to expand the traffic stop by asking Lang about drug use and requesting field sobriety testing."

"In sum, the record supports the district court’s findings that Lang (1) violated a traffic statute by failing to signal when changing lanes, and (2) exhibited multiple indicia of controlled-substance use. Because the traffic stop was valid and the officer permissibly expanded it based on reasonable suspicion that Lang was impaired, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Lang’s suppression motion."

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 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. 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.

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 Peach v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided September 23, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if you are not valid to obtain a driver's license in the State where the DWI was committed, you are not valid to obtain a driver's license in Minnesota.

Mr. Peach had three prior DWI's from Minnesota when he committed a fourth DWI in Wisconsin in 2021.  The Wisconsin conviction resulted in a "lifetime revocation" of his Wisconsin privilege to drive a motor vehicle.

In 2023, Mr. Peach applied for a Minnesota driver's license and sought to enroll in the Interlock program which would allow him to have an interlock-limited license. The application was denied because his driving privilege was still revoked in Wisconsin.

Mr. Peach filed a challenge in district court to the denial of his Minnesota license request but the district court sustained the application denial.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"Because appellant had three prior DWI offenses, under Wisconsin law he received a “lifetime” revocation of his driving privileges, and because appellant’s driving privileges have been revoked in Wisconsin, he may not apply for a driver’s license in Minnesota. See Minn. R. 7410.5500, subp 2 (“If an applicant’s driving privileges are withdrawn in any other state and the applicant applies for a driver’s license in Minnesota, then the applicant’s driving privileges must be reinstated in all other states before the applicant is eligible for driving privileges in Minnesota . . . .”)."

"Appellant argues that this is an “absurd” result because, if he had committed his fourth offense in Minnesota instead of in Wisconsin, he could enroll in IID. That may be true; persons who are convicted of a fourth Minnesota DWI offense are not necessarily convicted of violating Minn Stat. § 171.17, subd. 1(a)(9), and, if the statute they did violate is among those specified in Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 4(c), (d) (listing those eligible for the IID program), they are eligible to enroll."

"But it is also true that courts may presume the legislature does not intend an absurd result. Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2022). The legislature’s determination that persons with outstanding license revocations in other states should not be allowed to obtain a Minnesota license through the IID program is not absurd. “[C]onvictions of another state should generally be recognized in the forum state . . . [unless] strong public policy interests of the forum state provide sufficient reason to override the general rule of recognition.” State v. Schmidt, 712 N.W.2d 530, 537, 539 (Minn. 2006)".

***

"It is equally true that this court “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Martinco v. Hastings, 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (Minn. 1963). Thus, whether appellant would be entitled to enroll in IID if his fourth offense had been committed in Minnesota is irrelevant; his offense was committed in Wisconsin, is not included in Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 4(c), (d), and this court cannot sua sponte include it."

Moral Of The Story:  If you are going to drink, stay home.

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

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Marshall (decided September 9, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a search warrant is still valid if probable cause for its issuance still exists after the illegally obtained allegations in the warrant have been excluded.

In Marshall, the Defendant was stopped by the police and as the officer approached the driver's side window, the officer smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. Another officer arrived at the scene to assist.  

Marshall exited the SUV at the first officer’s request. As the first officer spoke with Marshall outside the SUV, he smelled the odor of marijuana coming from Marshall’s person. The first officer asked whether there was marijuana in the car, and Marshall said “no.” The first officer then asked, “When was the last time it was in there?” and Marshall responded, “It was not. . . never in there . . . like four hours ago we all was just chilling.” The first officer inferred that “chilling” “implied that [Marshall] was using marijuana hours earlier.” The first officer observed that Marshall’s pupils were “constricted,” which made him “concerned about impairment” by a drug other than marijuana.

The first officer seated Marshall in the squad car and searched Marshall’s SUV. In the “main area” of the SUV “where [Marshall] was sitting,” the first officer “observed there was some marijuana debris” and “a cup” with “a cough syrup or medicine odor, along with pop inside of it.” The first officer also found a backpack with “an empty prescription bottle” that “appeared to be a cough syrup.” The other officer found another prescription bottle in the backseat. The first officer returned to the squad car and conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, noting how Marshall’s pupils “reactfed] to light.”  The first officer saw the “presence of nystagmus, which led [him] to believe there might be . . . [a] narcotic involved.”

The first officer brought Marshall to the police station, read Marshall his Miranda rights, and asked if he would agree to “a full drug recognition evaluation” (DRE). Marshall agreed. Based on the DRE, the first officer suspected that Marshall was impaired by a stimulant, a narcotic analgesic, and cannabis. 

The first officer applied for a warrant to obtain a blood or urine sample from Marshall. The district court issued the warrant, and, after chemical testing, Marshall’s blood-test results showed the presence of oxycodone, oxymorphone, and cannabis.

The state charged Marshall with fourth-degree DWI under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7) (2020), for operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance.  Marshall moved to suppress “all evidence specified in the notice by the prosecuting attorney” and to dismiss the case, arguing that there was “no reasonable suspicion for the expansion of the stop” and “no probable cause for the search of [Marshall] and/or [his] vehicle.”

The District Court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress concluding that “constricted pupils and the smell of marijuana on the person” did not “create a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the car.” The district court also rejected the state’s arguments that Marshall consented to the search of his backpack, reasoning that Marshall asked only “if the officer could retrieve his stuff from the car.”  The district court therefore concluded that the items found in the search of the SUV should be suppressed and excluded from the warrant affidavit.

The district court did not consider the result of the HGN test in the back of the squad car but concluded that the DRE was “fruit of the poisonous tree” because it “would never have happened but for the smell of the cups, the cough syrup, [and] the eye check.” The district court determined that the search-warrant affidavit should have excluded any reference to the “marijuana debris and two Styrofoam cups with what appeared to be pop and a medicine like odor coming from it,” the “empty bottles of a prescription liquid medication,” and the DRE. The district court ruled that the “warrant as rewritten is inadequate and would not be signed by a reasonable magistrate reviewing just the evidence that is admissible”; therefore, the district court suppressed Marshall’s blood-test results and dismissed the case.

The State appealed the district court ruling and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the lower court stating:

"In its ruling suppressing the blood-test evidence, the district court concluded that law enforcement did not have probable cause to search Marshall’s SUV based only on the smell of burnt marijuana and the first officer’s observation of Marshall’s constricted pupils. It consequently also concluded that the evidence obtained from that search—marijuana debris, the medicine-like odor emanating from the foam cups, and the empty prescription bottles for liquid medication—were not properly included in the warrant application because they were obtained unlawfully."

"...we conclude that the warrant application includes other facts that did not derive from the challenged search of Marshall’s SUV and which are independently sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant."

"In Minnesota, even if the application for a search warrant includes information that the issuing magistrate should not have considered, the warrant nonetheless may be supported by probable cause based on facts that were obtained independently of the tainted information."

***

"Similarly, and as alleged here, if a warrant application includes information that was impermissibly obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, exclusion of the evidence obtained through the search warrant is not required if the application also contains lawfully acquired evidence that is independently sufficient to support issuance of the warrant. State v. Hodges, 287N.W.2d 413, 415-16 (Minn. 1979). Thus, if we redact from the blood-sample search-warrant application all information obtained from the search of Marshall’s SUV, and if the facts that remain nevertheless establish probable cause, then we may conclude that the warrant was valid regardless of any taint on the redacted information."

"We conclude, however, that the district court erred by excluding the DRE results when evaluating probable cause for the warrant because the DRE was permissibly included in the warrant application based on the independent-source doctrine. The “independent source doctrine . . . will countenance introduction of otherwise illegally-seized evidence if the police could have retrieved it on the basis of information obtained independent of their illegal activity.” State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 849 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted)."

"Marshall’s constricted pupils, the odor of burnt marijuana on Marshall’s person and from the SUV, and Marshall’s statement about “chilling” from which the officer inferred recent marijuana use—all of which the first officer observed before the SUV search—more than adequately supported the officer’s initial suspicion that Marshall was impaired and more than adequately supported the officer’s request that Marshall participate in the DRE following his arrest on the outstanding warrant. The record thus establishes that law enforcement could have—and very likely would have—sought to determine whether Marshall had been driving while impaired by requesting a DRE, regardless of whether his SUV had been searched. Accordingly, it was error for the district court to reject the DRE results in its evaluation of probable cause for the search warrant."

"Having determined that the DRE was, at a minimum, validly supported by the first officer’s observations of Marshall’s constricted pupils, the odor of marijuana on his person and from the SUV, and Marshall’s recent use of marijuana, we finally consider whether the facts in the warrant application—minus the information derived from the SUV search— are sufficient to establish probable cause for blood-sample search warrant.

“Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Onyelobi, 932 N.W.2d at 281 (quotation omitted). Considering the validly obtained information in the search-warrant affidavit, we are satisfied that they establish a fair probability that a sample of Marshall’s blood would disclose evidence of a crime. We therefore conclude that the search warrant was supported by probable cause irrespective of whether the application properly included information obtained from the SUV search. We therefore reverse the district court’s decision to suppress the blood-test results."

Moral Of The Story: Do not submit to a DRE.

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

Minnesota DWI 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.