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DWI Case Of The Week is Jensen v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided March 6, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police can just make stuff up on the witness stand and if the district court buys it, the case will be affirmed.

In Jensen, a Pine County sheriff’s deputy was patrolling the area near Airport Road and Highway 61. The deputy was behind a vehicle driven by Sheila Laurel Jensen. As the deputy followed behind her, Jensen activated her left turn signal and slowed down as if to turn left onto Henriette Road but missed the turn and continued driving on Highway 61 for a short distance. Jensen then pulled off onto the right shoulder, crossed two lanes of traffic and made a U-tum. The deputy, who had maintained a distance of approximately three car lengths, testified he had to “tap [his] brakes and slow down to prevent a risk of getting into an accident” when Jensen made the U-tum. The deputy initiated a traffic stop, later identifying an “illegal U-tum” as the reason for the stop.  During the stop, the deputy noticed indicia of intoxication. Jensen took a breath test which revealed an alcohol concentration above 0.08. 

Ms. Jensen filed a challenge to the revocation of her license arguing the stop was illegal.  The deputy was the only witness at the license revocation hearing. Jensen argued that the deputy’s testimony about having to tap his brakes and slow his speed to avoid a collision must not be credited because, among other arguments, the deputy’s police report did not include this information. While the report, itself, was not admitted into evidence, the following portion of the report was read into the record by the deputy on cross-examination as follows: “[The vehicle] turned on its left blinker to turn onto Henriette Road. The vehicle missed the turn, and then pulled over to the right shoulder and made a U-tum in front of me. I pulled the vehicle over after it got onto Henriette Road.” The district court found the deputy’s testimony credible and sustained Jensen’s license revocation.

On appeal, Ms. Jensen argued that the district court committed clear error when it credited the officer’s testimony regarding the illegal nature of the U-tum that instigated the traffic stop. Jensen argues that the deputy’s testimony is not credible because his police report does not contain “one objective fact that supports” the assertion that she made an illegal U-tum. 

The Court of Appeals, however, notes: "The deputy’s testimony, however, was not in any way inconsistent with his report. There is also no requirement that, in order to justify a stop, police reports must contain the level of detail being sought by Jensen." (That's why I always lock in the officer on cross and make them explain they are trained to put everything that is "important" into their report. Then if the now "important" testimony is not in the report, it looks like they are making stuff up.)

***

"The deputy... testified that he needed to slow down in order to avoid a possible collision with Jensen’s vehicle while Jensen made the U-tum, and the district court found the deputy’s testimony to be credible. Jensen’s arguments to the contrary were raised and lost at the district court level. She has failed to show clear error on this appeal."

***

"Because credibility determinations are the province of the district court and there is sufficient evidence to support the court’s conclusions, the district court did not err in finding the deputy’s testimony credible and sustaining the revocation of Jensen’s driver’s license."

Moral Of The Story:  If there is a cop on your tail, do not turn around.

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.