The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Taylor (Decided May 14, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police can rely entirely upon statements of a 3rd person to justify a Minnesota DWI vehicle stop.
In Taylor, a Wayzata police officer was on patrol in the City of Wayzata when he overheard a radio transmission from the Orono Police Department regarding a domestic disturbance in the City of Mound. The transmission indicated that the Orono Police Department received information from dispatch that a male individual "had shown up at a female's residence" and that a "verbal altercation" ensued. The female reported that she "believed the male was intoxicated" because he made "unusual" comments about wanting to kill Donald Trump. The female identified the male as appellant Brian Taylor, and stated that he left her residence in a red Jeep and would be "traveling on Highway 12."
The officer positioned his squad car along Highway 12, and a "couple of minutes" later, observed a red Jeep drive past his location. Officer Sharratt followed the Jeep and checked its license plate. The license check revealed that Taylor was the registered owner. The officer initiated a traffic stop because he believed that Taylor was involved in the reported domestic disturbance and may have been intoxicated.
Defendant Taylor was subsequently arrested for a DWI and he filed a motion to suppress arguing the initial stop was unconstitutional. The motion to suppress was denied and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:
"Taylor argues that the stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional because it was "based on a hunch developed after overhearing radio traffic of another department, and not based on any observations of the officer or facts known to him that would create a reasonable articulable suspicion that [Taylor] was involved in criminal activity." But the factual basis needed to maintain a routine traffic stop need not arise from an officer's personal observations; it may also be supplied by information acquired from another person, including an informant. Marben v. State, Dep 't of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980). An officer properly stops a motor vehicle in reliance on a telephone tip when the caller identifies herself and states that a driver of a vehicle has just been nearby and appears to be intoxicated. See, e.g., City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd, 420 N.W.2d 887, 890-91 (Minn. 1988) (stating that stop was proper when based on identified gas-station attendant's tip regarding intoxicated driver); Magnuson v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 703 N.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Minn. App. 2005) (stating that sufficient reasonable suspicion supported stop based on personal observations of an identified citizen that driver was drunk)."
Moral Of The Story: Never get in an argument with a woman when you are drunk.
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.
In Taylor, a Wayzata police officer was on patrol in the City of Wayzata when he overheard a radio transmission from the Orono Police Department regarding a domestic disturbance in the City of Mound. The transmission indicated that the Orono Police Department received information from dispatch that a male individual "had shown up at a female's residence" and that a "verbal altercation" ensued. The female reported that she "believed the male was intoxicated" because he made "unusual" comments about wanting to kill Donald Trump. The female identified the male as appellant Brian Taylor, and stated that he left her residence in a red Jeep and would be "traveling on Highway 12."
The officer positioned his squad car along Highway 12, and a "couple of minutes" later, observed a red Jeep drive past his location. Officer Sharratt followed the Jeep and checked its license plate. The license check revealed that Taylor was the registered owner. The officer initiated a traffic stop because he believed that Taylor was involved in the reported domestic disturbance and may have been intoxicated.
Defendant Taylor was subsequently arrested for a DWI and he filed a motion to suppress arguing the initial stop was unconstitutional. The motion to suppress was denied and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:
"Taylor argues that the stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional because it was "based on a hunch developed after overhearing radio traffic of another department, and not based on any observations of the officer or facts known to him that would create a reasonable articulable suspicion that [Taylor] was involved in criminal activity." But the factual basis needed to maintain a routine traffic stop need not arise from an officer's personal observations; it may also be supplied by information acquired from another person, including an informant. Marben v. State, Dep 't of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980). An officer properly stops a motor vehicle in reliance on a telephone tip when the caller identifies herself and states that a driver of a vehicle has just been nearby and appears to be intoxicated. See, e.g., City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd, 420 N.W.2d 887, 890-91 (Minn. 1988) (stating that stop was proper when based on identified gas-station attendant's tip regarding intoxicated driver); Magnuson v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 703 N.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Minn. App. 2005) (stating that sufficient reasonable suspicion supported stop based on personal observations of an identified citizen that driver was drunk)."
Moral Of The Story: Never get in an argument with a woman when you are drunk.
If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, 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