Monday, April 26, 2021

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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Halverson (Decided April 26, 2021, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that entering a home uninvited is sufficient suspicious conduct to justify a vehicle stop.

In Halverson, the police received a report of a suspicious person on Allendale Drive in St. Cloud. The suspicious person had entered a home to see “Crystal,” who did not live there. The suspicious person did not apologize for entering the home uninvited or further inquire about “Crystal” before fleeing the scene. The report described the suspicious person as a white male with short hair, a black shirt, and blue jeans who fled in a black car.

As the officer responded to the report, he passed a person driving a black car. He thought the person and car matched the descriptions in the report. A bicyclist flagged the officer down and stated that the black car that the officer had just passed nearly hit him. The officer saw Defendant Shane Kenneth Halverson driving his car, which matched the descriptions of the car and person from the report, and then stopped him. The  Defendant was subsequently arrested for a DWI, driving after cancellation and trespass.

The Defendant challenged the legality of the traffic stop arguing that the "suspicious-person" description was too general. He also argued that the bicyclist's tip could not have supported the stop because the officer did not observe any driving conduct consistent with the tip. 

The District Court upheld the legality of the stop and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the district court noting:

"In considering whether reasonable, articulable suspicion exists, courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.” State v. Richardson, 622 N.W.2d 823, 825 (Minn. 2001); see also State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84, 88-89 (Minn. 2000) (noting we are deferential to police officer training and experience). But an officer may not act on “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” Marben v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980) (quotation omitted)."

"The undisputed facts here are that the officer responded to a reported trespass involving a white male with short hair, a black shirt, and blue jeans who fled in a black car. Within ten minutes of the report,  the officer stopped appellant, a white male with short hair driving in a black car near the reported trespass. The officer relied on appellant’s proximity to “the exact area of the suspected trespass” in deciding to conduct a traffic stop."

***

"Considering the description of the car and suspicious person, the officer’s testimony about the proximity of the stop to the reported trespass, and the relatively short time that elapsed between the report and the stop, we conclude that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop appellant’s car. Consequently, we decline to address appellant’s alternative argument."

Moral Of The Story: Not every house is your home.

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.




  

No comments:

Post a Comment