The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Karger (Decided September 25, 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a person is not under arrest even after the police can place the suspect in the back of a squad car and return the suspect to the scene of an accident. What a bunch of nonsense.
In Karger, the driver of a Pontiac Grand Prix rolled into a ditch along a highway in Swift County. A witness stopped, called police, and transported the driver—and the sole occupant—to a local bar, one mile away, where the driver waited for a ride. Approximately 20 minutes after the 911 call, police officer Justin Girard arrived at the bar. From police dispatch, Officer Girard knew that the driver was a female, appeared to be under the influence, had a cut on her hand, and was waiting for a ride. While speaking with Officer Girard, Karger denied that she was involved in the accident. The bartender explained, however, that the witness had dropped off Karger, that Karger was the only other person at the bar, and that Karger had admitted that she had been involved in a car accident. Returning to speak with Karger, Officer Girard observed that she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. She had slurred speech, had bloodshot, watery eyes, and had poor balance. She also had a cut on her hand. Girard asked Karger to accompany him to the accident site and get her car. Girard neither placed Karger in handcuffs nor said that she was under arrest.
At the scene, Officer Girard learned that the Pontiac was registered to Karger under her previous name. Karger agreed to perform field sobriety tests and failed. On a preliminary breath test, her breath sample registered an alcohol concentration of 0.19. After being placed under arrest and transported to jail, Karger agreed to a blood alcohol test, which showed an alcohol concentration of 0.263.
Karger moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that Officer Giarard unlawfully arrested her without probable cause. Karger claimed that she was under arrest when she was placed in the back of the squad car and was transported back to the accident site.
The District Court denied the Motion to Suppress and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, noting:
"In consideration of whether an investigatory stop has exceeded its limits relative to the reasonable suspicion standard, Minnesota courts have asked whether an interpretation of the circumstances would permit a reasonable person to believe that she was under arrest and not free to leave. See id. Ultimately, the test is one of reasonableness, which requires balancing 'the nature and degree of the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights against the government’s interest in crime prevention and legitimate concerns about the safety of law-enforcement officers.'"
"Here, the undisputed facts demonstrate that Officer Girard did not transform the investigative stop into an unlawful arrest by placing Karger in the squad car. Officer Girard knew that the driver of the rollover accident was dropped off at the bar. Karger was the only person at the bar, other than a bartender who confirmed that she was dropped off and had admitted to being involved in a car accident. Knowing that the driver had a cut on her hand, Officer Girard independently observed the cut on Karger’s hand. As Officer Girard explained at the pretrial hearing, he was still unsure whether Karger was in fact the driver but asked her to come to the accident scene, one mile away.
"The record reflects that Karger was detained for fewer than fifteen minutes. Cf. Moffatt, 450 N.W.2d at 117 (upholding reasonableness of investigatory detention that lasted more than one hour). Girard did not place Karger under arrest during the investigation and he did not handcuff her. The brief detention allowed Officer Girard to continue his investigation of the rollover. In light of Karger’s denial of involvement in the rollover against corroborating evidence suggesting otherwise, Officer Girard’s investigatory detention was justified to freeze the situation."
The problem with the Court of Appeals decision is: Whether a person is under arrest is not balancing test! The test for whether a person is under arrest is whether a "reasonable person would believe they are free to leave", period. As soon as you start weighing the police need to investigate a crime, the suspect is always going to lose! Very disappointed in this decision!!
Moral Of The Story: Always ask if you are under arrest before going anywhere with the police.
Moral Of The Story: Always ask if you are under arrest before going anywhere with the police.
If you or a loved one have been arrested for 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 questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment