In Orsten, the petitioner was arrested for DWI in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota and he filed a challenge to his license revocation arguing that his arrest was illegal as the police officer did not have probable cause to administer a preliminary breath test (PBT) after Orsten successfully completed one of three standard field sobriety tests.
In a ruling issued today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected Orson's claim, stating:
"Preliminarily, we note that
the district court analyzed Orsten's argument as a challenge to the officer's
reasonable, articulable suspicion that Orsten was impaired before requiring him
to submit to a PBT. In his brief on appeal, however, Orsten argues that
probable cause is necessary before a driver may be required to submit to a PBT.
Orsten is mistaken. An officer may require a driver to submit to a PBT when the
officer "has reason to believe"
the driver is impaired. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.41, subd. 1 (2014); see
also State, Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn.
1981) (stating standard for administering PBT is articulable suspicion)."
"Orsten argues that his stop
for speeding, instead of for erratic driving, does not support the officer's
suspicion of impairment. Orsten's argument fails because the
officer may make the impairment determination "from the manner in which a
person is driving ... or acting upon departure from a motor
vehicle." Minn. Stat. § 169A.41, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Because the
statute permits the officer to require a driver to submit to a PBT based on the
driver's actions after the driver has exited the vehicle, the lack of any
indication of impaired driving prior to the stop is irrelevant."
In this case, "The officer approached the
vehicle and noticed that Orsten, the driver and sole occupant, had "bloodshot,
watery eyes that were red around the irises," and he "detected an
odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from inside" the vehicle and on
Orsten's person after he exited the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. See State v. Klamar, 823
N.W.2d 687, 696 (Minn. App. 2012) (stating that two indicia of
intoxication—the odor of alcohol emanating from the driver and the driver's
bloodshot and watery eyes—reasonably justified intrusions in the form of field
sobriety testing and a PBT); Eager v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 382 N.W.2d
907, 911 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that a driver's bloodshot and watery eyes
and an odor of alcohol provided reasonable suspicion of
DWI and a legal basis for a PBT). Orsten admitted to drinking two beers that night.
"An admission of drinking, coupled with other indicators of intoxication,
is sufficient for probable cause to arrest." State v. Laducer, 676
N.W.2d 693, 698 (Minn. App. 2004). Finally, Orsten failed the
horizontal-gaze-nystagmus test and the walk-and-turn test. After Orsten failed
these two field-sobriety tests, the officer requested that Orsten provide a
sample of breath for the PBT, which he also failed. The totality of the
circumstances supports the conclusion that the officer formed a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Orsten was driving
while impaired, which justified the officer's request that Orsten
provide a sample of breath for the PBT.
Finally, Orsten argued that the officer did not have grounds to invoke the PBT because he passed the one-legged-stand test and the officer did not observe other indicia of impairment, such as slurred speed or fumbling attempts to locate his driver's license. But the Court of Appeals rejected this final contention noting, "There is no requirement that a driver demonstrate every possible indicia of impairment before being required to submit to a PBT."
Moral Of The Story: It does not take much to invoke the Preliminary Breath Test. So if you or a loved one has 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment