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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Higgins (decided October 24, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if a windshield crack is big enough, it will be presumed to interfere with the driver's vision.

In Higgins, the Defendant was stopped on Highway 169 after leaving Hibbing, MN. Mr. Higgins was subsequently charged with DWI and he challenged the validity of the initial stop.

The arresting officer testified he stopped Higgins because he observed (1) a crack in Higgins’s front windshield that “went three quarters of the way through the windshield,” and (2) a suspended object “swinging on the mirror.” The officer could not recall the exact item he saw “swinging” on the rearview mirror or the location of the crack on the windshield. But the officer recalled that the reflection of the sun on the windshield made the crack “very easy to see.”

The District Court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court, stating:

"Regarding the scope of the windshield crack, the trooper testified that the crack he observed “went three quarters of the way through the windshield.” He described it as “very easy to see” from the sunshine’s reflection on the windshield at the time of the stop. Based upon this testimony, the district court found that the crack extended across three-quarters of the vehicle’s windshield. Because a crack of this size could lead a reasonable officer to suspect that the driver’s vision was limited, this undisputed factual finding on the size and extent of the crack provides a sufficient basis for the conclusion that the trooper had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Higgins drove in violation of the obstructed-vision statute. Diede, 795 N.W.2d at 842-43."

"To persuade us otherwise, Higgins references State v. Poehler, where we held that not every windshield crack justifies a traffic stop under the obstructed-vision statute. 921 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Minn. App. 2018), affd on other grounds, 935 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2019). Rather, there must be evidence to support a finding that a reasonable officer might suspect that the windshield was cracked to an extent that it limited the driver’s vision. Id. at 580-81. But unlike Poehler—where there was no factual finding about the crack’s size or location—evidence of the windshield crack size exists here."

***

"In sum, we conclude that the trooper had a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity when he observed the windshield crack on Higgins’s vehicle because the crack spanned “three quarters of the way through the windshield.” Under these circumstances, a reasonable officer could conclude that the crack obstructed the driver’s view in violation of the traffic law."

Moral Of The Story: The bigger the crack, the better the stop.

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. Walter (Decided October 10, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that one can only be convicted of one DWI offense arising out of a single behavioral incident.  This case is nothing new as the Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have repeatedly affirmed this principle.  But the case illustrates that some district courts are still not paying attention. 

In Walter, The Defendant was found sleeping in the front driver's seat of a car parked along side Interstate 94 near Moorhead Minnesota. The Defendant was drunk and subsequently refused to submit to testing at the police station.

Mr. Walter was charged with Felony DWI and with Felony DWI Refusal to Submit to testing. The Defendant was found guilty by a jury of both charges and warrant of commitment showed convictions on both counts.  

On Appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals vacated the Felony Refusal conviction noting:

"Upon prosecution for a crime, the actor may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense, but not both.” Minn. Stat. § 609.04, subd. 1 (2020). The supreme court has held that “section 609.04 bars multiple convictions under different sections of a criminal statute for acts committed during a single behavioral incident.” State v. Jackson, 363 N.W.2d 758, 760 (Minn. 1985)."

"...this court applies a two-part test to determine whether any of the multiple convictions should be vacated. State v. Bonkowske, 957N.W.2d 437, 443-44 (Minn. App. 2021). First, the convictions at issue must be for offenses that arise under different sections of the same criminal statute. Jackson, 363 N.W.2d at 760. Second, the offenses must have been for acts committed during a single behavioral incident. Id".

"Walter’s convictions for count 1 and count 2 were for offenses arising under different sections of the same criminal statute—Minn. Stat. § 169A.20. Also, this court has held that DWI and test refusal “committed as part of a continuous course of conduct, as occurred here, arise out of a single behavioral incident.” Bonkowske, 957 N.W.2d at 444. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred by entering convictions on counts 1 and 2 on the warrant of commitment."

As explained by State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277, 284 (Minn. 1984):

"[W]hen the defendant is convicted on more than one charge for the same act [the district court is] to adjudicate formally and impose sentence on one count only. The remaining conviction(s) should not be formally adjudicated at this time.

If the adjudicated conviction is later vacated for a reason not relevant to the remaining unadjudicated conviction(s), one of the remaining unadjudicated convictions can then be formally adjudicated and sentence imposed, with credit, of course, given for time already served on the vacated sentence."

Moral Of The Story: One conviction is one too many but legally speaking, one is plenty!

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