Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Platt v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided April 29, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if you act like a jerk, you will get jerked around.

In Platt, the Petitioner was arrested for DWI and the arresting officer obtained a search warrant for a sample of Mr. Platt's blood or urine. Platt refused to submit to blood testing and said that he would submit to urine testing, but demanded time and water in order to provide the sample. Over the next hour, the officer would check in to see if Platt was prepared to give the sample, but Platt repeatedly indicated that he needed more time. In all of his interactions with the officer, Platt was insulting and profane, frequently shouting over the officer. The officer determined that Platt’s conduct amounted to test refusal, and so informed the commissioner of public safety, leading the commissioner to revoke Platt’s license.

Platt filed a challenge to the license revocation in district court arguing that : (1) his license cannot be revoked as the officer did not read him the statutorily mandated advisory and (2) that his right to due process was violated as he was not told that his refusal to submit to testing was a crime.

The district court upheld the license revocation and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed noting that they need not decide the merits of Mr. Platt's arguments as there are a long line of cases which hold that a driver's misbehavior constitutes a waiver of rights under the implied consent law. Or, as stated by the Court:

"Drivers who are arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated have a duty to avoid frustrating the implied-consent testing process. State v. Collins, 655 N.W.2d 652, 658 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 2003). When a driver’s conduct prevents officers from completing the implied-consent procedure, the driver is deemed to have waived his or her rights under that process. See State v. Busch, 614 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Minn. App. 2000) (holding that a driver who frustrated the implied consent process by his silence had waived his right to an attorney). Thus, where a driver prevented an officer from reading the implied-consent advisory by “screaming, swearing, making accusations of rape, and insisting that she would not listen,” the driver could be convicted for test refusal even though the implied-consent advisory was not read and she was never provided with an opportunity to contact an attorney. Collins, 655 N.W.2d at 658. Although Collins and Busch address the limited right to counsel, their rationale applies here. See id.; Busch, 614 N.W.2d at 259-60; see also Sigfrinius v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 378 N.W.2d 124, 126 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding that a driver’s conduct frustrates administration of the test where his conduct is “calculated to avoid any ‘suspension’ of his license”). Accepting Platt’s argument that implied consent cases also apply to Minn. Stat. § 171.177, a driver receiving a warrant advisory may not frustrate the advisory and then contest the revocation because the advisory was not given."

Moral Of The Story:  If you have been arrested, don't make matter worse for yourself by being a jerk.

If you or a loved one have been charged with 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 and DUI questions.

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. Rusthoven which stands for the proposition that if you act like you have something to hide, you are going to get searched by the police.

In Rusthoven, the Defendant was stopped for speeding in Swift County, Minnesota. When Deputy Hoffman approached the Defendant's truck, he noticed Mr. Rusthoven was, "very fidgety and very agitated".  When Deputy Hoffman asked Rusthoven if he was under the influence of a controlled substance, Rusthoven became “even more agitated.”

The deputy returned to his squad car to look up Rusthoven’s driver’s license. The search revealed that Rusthoven’s license was restricted, requiring that, if any drugs were found in his system, his license would be invalidated. The deputy returned to speak with Rusthoven and observed that, "his arms were constantly moving, just back and forth, up and down. He would take his hat over [sic] very quickly and put it on very quickly and he was always, you know, it appeared that he was always digging around inside the vehicle or moving his arms inside the vehicle."

Deputy Hoffman asked Rusthoven to exit the vehicle, but Rusthoven refused. This made the deputy “fairly nervous.” The deputy waited to take further action until a second deputy arrived.

When a second deputy arrived, Deputy Hoffman asked Rusthoven to exit his vehicle again. After several requests from both deputies, Rusthoven did so. Deputy Hoffman performed a pat-down search for weapons and thought that he felt a methamphetamine pipe in Rusthoven’s front pocket. Deputy Hoffman told Rusthoven that he was under arrest.

A search warrant was obtained to get a sample of Rusthoven's blood. The blood tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Mr. Rusthoven was charged with felony DWI and he moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing the deputy did not have a reason suspicion to expand the stop and conduct a pat-down for weapons.  The district court denied Rusthoven’s motions, finding that each expansion of the stop was justified.  

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the district court, stating:

"To be constitutional, “each incremental intrusion during a traffic stop [must] be tied to and justified by one of the following: (1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry.” State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 365 (Minn. 2004). The supreme court has summarized Terry as follows: “[E]ven in the absence of probable cause, the police may stop and frisk a person when (1) they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect might be engaged in criminal activity and (2) the officer reasonably believes the suspect might be armed and dangerous.” State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 250 (Minn. 2007) (quotations omitted); accord Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884 (1968)."

***

"Based on the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Hoffman reasonably believed that Rusthoven was armed and dangerous. The deputy observed indicia of drug use and found that Rusthoven’s license was restricted from prior drug use. In addition, Rusthoven was unwilling to cooperate with the deputies’ requests to exit the vehicle. Based on those facts, combined with Rusthoven’s “erratic and agitated” movements, including “digging around inside the vehicle,” “moving his arms inside the vehicle,” and “fidgeting with everything,” the deputy reasonably believed that Rusthoven was armed and dangerous. At that point, given the totality of the circumstances, Deputy Hoffman possessed reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot and that Rusthoven was armed and dangerous, justifying a pat-down frisk for weapons."

Moral Of The Story:  If you get fidgety, the cops will get frisky!


If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.

Minnesota 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. Shaw (Decided April 15, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a fish house, within the curtilage of a home, is entitled to Fourth Amendment protection.

In Shaw, the police received a report that the Defendant hit a utility pole with his vehicle and then left the scene.  The police were given the license plate number of the vehicle and they used this information to go to the Defendant's residence.  When the police arrived at the home, they came in contact with the Defendant's mother who told them that Defendant was not in the residence.  She refused to allow the police to search the home.  Defendant's mother did consent to a search of the garage.

The police searched the garage but did not find Shaw. The deputies observed Shaw’s vehicle, the one involved in the accident, parked in the grass behind the home. They noted that the engine was warm to the touch, indicating that it had recently been driven, and a deputy testified that he also observed patches of dead grass indicating that a vehicle had been parked in the backyard at other times. Behind the home, the deputies also found an old, dilapidated fish house with grass growing around it. The grass in front of the fish house was matted down, indicating that someone had recently entered it. A deputy approached the fish house and called out for Shaw, who did not respond. The deputy opened the door to the fish house and discovered Shaw inside. Shaw subsequently failed field sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of DWI.

The Defendant moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing that the fish house was a constitutionally protected area which the police could not enter without a warrant.  The district court denied the motion but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court stating:

"In State v. Larsen, the supreme court considered whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a fish house. 650 N.W.2d 144, 149 (Minn. 2002)....The supreme court considered “the nature of the premises [in Larsen]—a fish house, erected and equipped to protect its occupants from the elements and often providing eating, sleeping, and other facilities—as providing privacy for activities recognized and permitted by society.” Id. at 149 (quotation omitted). The supreme court noted that “[w]hile clearly not a substitute for one’s private dwelling, during the period of occupancy important activities of a personal nature take place” within a fish house. Id. The supreme court concluded that Larsen had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his fish house."  

But in this case the Court of Appeals held that Larsen does not apply as, "The record here does not suggest that Shaw was living in the fish house. Moreover, a dilapidated, overgrown fish house located in the backyard of a residence does not provide “eating, sleeping, and other facilities” as a fish house located on a lake would. Id. This case is distinguishable from Larsen, and therefore Shaw did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fish house."

The Court of Appeals further ruled, however, that:

"The “land immediately surrounding and associated with the home,” the curtilage, is “part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 1742 (1984). To determine whether an area is located within the curtilage of the property, appellate courts look to “whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home’s ‘umbrella’ of Fourth Amendment protection."

"The United States Supreme Court has identified four relevant factors to use when determining whether a disputed area falls within the curtilage:

[1] the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, 
[2] whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, 
[3] the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and 
[4] the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301, 107 S. Ct. at 1139.

"The fish house was located in the backyard of a residential, single-family home. “The backyard and driveway of a home are often considered to be within the curtilage of a home.” State v. Chute, 908 N.W.2d 578, 584 (Minn. 2018). Like the defendant in Chute, Shaw “does not live on a large piece of rural property” but rather “lives in a single-family home.” See id. Thus, the first Dunn factor—proximity to the home—weighs in Shaw’s favor."

"The record is less clear regarding the remaining Dunn factors. There was no testimony as to whether the property was enclosed by a fence, shielded by trees, or otherwise protected from observation. “The curtilage of a home, however, need not be completely shielded from public view.” Id. at 585. Thus, the second and fourth factors are neutral. As to the third Dunn factor, one deputy testified that it appeared from patches of dead grass that a vehicle had been parked in the backyard before, and the deputies discovered Shaw’s vehicle parked in the backyard that day. This indicates that Shaw may have used the backyard as a place to park his vehicle, and this kind of use is “closely related to the home and associated with the privacies of life.” See id. (concluding that portion of defendant’s backyard where he had parked a camper was curtilage). Therefore, this factor weighs in Shaw’s favor."

"In sum, consideration of the Dunn factors demonstrate that the backyard in which the fish house was located was within the curtilage of Shaw’s home, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and the deputies therefore were required to obtain a warrant to search the fish house..."

Moral Of The Story:  Even if something fishy is going on, the police still need a warrant to enter the house! 

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

Minnesota DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Kelly (Decided April 1, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a driver, in making a turn, does not have to turn into the lane closest to the centerline.

In Kelly, an Eden Prairie police officer observed the Defendant's truck stopped at a red light at the intersection of Singletree Lane and Prairie Center Drive.  Singletree Lane runs from east to west and has two eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes, divided by a grass median. Similarly, Prairie Center Drive runs from north to south and has two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, also divided by a grass median.  Kelley’s truck was stopped in the left-most lane of the westbound portion of Singletree Lane. That lane is the only lane from which a left-hand turn onto Prairie Center Drive can be legally made, and there are no markers extending the lanes through the intersection onto Prairie Center Drive.

Kelley’s turn signal was activated, indicating his intent to make a left-hand turn onto southbound Prairie Center Drive. Officer Streiff testified that when the light turned green, he watched Kelley’s truck make “a wide turn and actually turn into the far right lane, not the near lane when making the left hand turn.” Upon exiting the intersection, Kelley completed his turn.  Officer Streiff testified that he believed the wide left turn was a traffic violation, so he initiated a traffic stop.  

Mr. Kelly was drunk and was subsequently arrested for 2nd Degree DWI.  He moved to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges arguing arguing that the officer did not have a reasonable, articulable basis for the stop because his left turn was legal. 

The District Court denied the Defendant's Motion but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, stating:

"Kelley does not dispute that he did not turn into the inner portion of the lane when completing the left turn. Instead, he argues that the district court and the officer erred in relying on Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(b) to conclude that he violated a traffic law. He asserts that the district court and the officer misinterpreted the statute because “Minnesota law does not dictate which lane of the roadway being entered that a left turn must be completed in."

***

"The relevant portion of the left-turn statute provides that the driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows:

(b) Approach for a left turn on other than one-way roadways shall be made in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the centerline thereof, and after entering the intersection the left turn shall be made so as to leave the intersection to the right of the centerline of the roadway being entered. Whenever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection. Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(b).

"The first sentence of subdivision 1(b) provides guidance as to how one should approach the intersection to make a left turn and requires that approach for a left turn, on other than one-way roadways, be made in the portion of the roadway nearest the centerline. Id. Here, there is no dispute that Kelley complied with this requirement."

***

"The plain language of the statute required Kelley, after entering the intersection, to leave the intersection to the right of the centerline of Prairie Center Drive. The statute does not require that a left turn be completed in the inner-most, closest, or nearest lane “to the right of the centerline of the roadway being entered.” Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(b). Both of the southbound lanes on Prairie Center Drive are to the right of the centerline, and Kelley’s turn into the outer lane, which was on the right side of the median, complied with this portion of the statute."

"The state argues that the second sentence of the subdivision required Kelley to turn into the inner-most lane of the roadway being entered because there was nothing obstructing Kelley’s ability to complete the turn in the inner-most lane. The state relies on the language in the second sentence of subdivision 1(b), which provides that “[w]henever practicable the left turn shall be made in that portion of the intersection to the left of the center of the intersection.” Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(b)."

"Given these plain-language meanings and the statutory definition of intersection, the “whenever practicable” provision in the statute only refers to a driver’s conduct when going through the intersection, not when completing the turn. Consequently, Kelley was not required to turn into the inner-most lane because it was “practicable” for him to do so. Because the statute does not require which lane of the roadway being entered a left turn must be completed in, the district court erred by concluding that Kelley was required to turn into the inner-most lane of Prairie Center Drive."

Moral Of The Story:  People may often make a wrong turn in life but the lane chosen does not really matter.

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