Monday, June 4, 2018

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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Holt (Decided June 4, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that it doesn't take much for the police to demand a preliminary breath test.

In Holt, the Defendant was stopped for failure to signal a turn.  Mr. Holt provided the police officer with proof of insurance but not a driver's license.  Mr. Holt identified himself and provided a date of birth, but when the officer entered that information into his system, it brought up a photo that did not match the driver. The officer continued to attempt to identify the driver, but the driver could not confirm his address or when he last had his license renewed. The officer placed the driver under arrest for giving a false name.

While walking the driver to his squad car, the officer noticed he smelled of alcohol and asked how much alcohol he had to drink that night. Mr. Holt was non-responsive.

After transporting him to a police station, the officer was able to identify the driver as appellant Sedrick Lamar Holt. Once identified, the officer discovered Holt's driving privileges were cancelled, and he had an active felony warrant. The officer also noticed Holt's eyes were red and watery. The officer asked Holt to complete field sobriety tests or a preliminary breath test, but Holt refused.

Holt agreed to a breath test. He was instructed on how to provide an accurate sample, but after nine tries Holt was unable to provide that sample. The officer deemed Holt's failure to provide an adequate sample a refusal.

The Defendant was subsequently convicted of Felony DWI and on appeal argued that the evidence should have been suppressed by the district court as the police officer did not hav a reasonable, articulable suspicion to request that Holt submit to a preliminary breath test.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled against the Defendant stating:

"Whether an officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion is determined by the totality of the circumstances. State v. Martinson, 581 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Minn. 1998). Articulable suspicion can arise when there is evidence of sufficient indicia of intoxication. State v. Driscoll, All N.W.2d 263, 265-66 (Minn. App. 1988). Both an odor of alcohol and bloodshot and watery eyes are indicia of intoxication. State v. Klamar, 823 N. W.2d 687, 696 (Minn. App. 2012). And a traffic violation coupled with indicia of intoxication can provide reasonable, articulable suspicion.  The district court determined the totality of the circumstances provided the officer with reasonable, articulable suspicion. We agree."

"Here, the officer stopped Holt after observing him commit a traffic violation—he failed to signal a turn. The officer approached the vehicle, and Holt only rolled down his window two to three inches to talk to the officer. After talking to the officer and failing to confirm necessary information to prove his identity, Holt was removed from the car and placed under arrest for providing a false name to police. It was when Holt was removed from his car and placed into a squad car that the officer first noticed Holt smelled of alcohol and asked how much alcohol Holt had to drink that evening. And once the officer brought Holt to the police station, he noticed Holt had red and watery eyes. The officer than asked Holt to complete field sobriety tests or a preliminary breath test. Because the officer witnessed a traffic violation and noticed multiple signs of intoxication prior to requesting the preliminary test, he had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Holt was driving while impaired by alcohol consumption."

Moral Of The Story:  A traffic violation plus one or more indicia of alcohol consumption will always furnish a sufficient basis for the police to request a preliminary breath test (PBT).

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 Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

No comments:

Post a Comment