Monday, December 16, 2019

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Case Of The Week is Schreyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided December 16, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Appellate Court does not know what constitutes a "seizure".

In Schreyer, the Petitioner became stuck in the snow while behind the wheel of a van.  A New Ulm police officer had been helping other stranded cars deal with approximately one foot of snow when he came upon the Petitioner's vehicle.

Two people were standing just ahead of the van and the Petitioner was sitting in the van’s driver’s seat. The van was still running. The people ahead of the van appeared to be trying to attach a tow rope to the van from a truck parked in front of it. Concerned that the van was a hazard to oncoming traffic, the officer turned on his rear emergency lights and parked nearby in the street.

The officer walked up to see if the people needed any help. He went to the driver’s side door of the van and tapped on the window, trying to get Schreyer’s attention. But Schreyer avoided all eye contact, staring ahead with both hands firmly on the steering wheel. The officer then went to the front of the van and tried tapping the windshield. And Schreyer turned his head away, seemingly trying to avoid eye contact with the officer. Noting this, the officer became concerned for the driver’s welfare and tapped on the driver’s window again. Schreyer did not respond.

The officer walked up to see if the people needed any help. He went to the driver’s side door of the van and tapped on the window, trying to get Schreyer’s attention. But Schreyer avoided all eye contact, staring ahead with both hands firmly on the steering wheel. The officer then went to the front of the van and tried tapping the windshield. And Schreyer turned his head away, seemingly trying to avoid eye contact with the officer. Noting this, the officer became concerned for the driver’s welfare and tapped on the driver’s window again. Schreyer did not respond.

The Petitioner's driver's license was subsequently revoked and he filed a challenge to the revocation arguing that the was unlawfully seized when the officer opened the door of his van.  The district court upheld the license revocation and on appeal the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed holding that: (1) no seizure occurred and, even if it did, (2) the seizure was lawful.

The Court of Appeals conclusion that no seizure occurred does not make any sense.  The Court correctly states:

"A person is seized when a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to leave or an officer restrains their liberty by physical force or show of authority. In re Welfare ofE.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993). And seizures are assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877(1980)."

"Generally, when a police officer stops a vehicle, it is a seizure. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996). But Minnesota courts have held that it does not, without more, constitute a seizure for an officer simply to walk up and talk to a driver sitting in an already stopped car. State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756, 757 (Minn. 1980). This is particularly true when an officer approaches a parked car to see if the occupants need help. See State v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687, 690, 693 (Minn. App. 2012) (concluding that it was not a seizure but a welfare check for an officer to approach a car stopped on the interstate with a passenger vomiting out the side). In fact, “an officer has not only the right but a duty to make a reasonable investigation of vehicles parked along roadways to offer such assistance as might be needed and to inquire into the physical condition of persons in vehicles.” Kozak v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 359 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn App. 1984)."

But when the officer opened the door of his vehicle a seizure occurred.  Not only would a person not feel free to leave once the door has been opened, but the open door prevents a person from lawfully driving away.  

The court correctly concludes that "even if a seizure occurred, it was justified".  But to claim there was no seizure in the first place is just plain wrong.

Moral Of The Story:  If the police are gentlemen and open your car door for you, you are now free to leave.

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.









No comments:

Post a Comment