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DWI Case Of The Week is Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided June 13, 2016, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police do not need to see you drive, operate or physically control a motor vehicle for your license to be revoked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