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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The week is State v. Peterson (Decided February 27, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that a stop of a motor vehicle is valid if the stop is based upon a reasonable mistake of fact.

In Peterson, the Defendant was stopped because the police officer ran a license plate inquiry on the Defendant's vehicle and the inquiry revealed the Defendant's license was cancelled. The Defendant was eventually arrested for Felony DWI and a search of his vehicle revealed drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine.

Peterson moved the suppress the evidence arguing the stop was unconstitutional.  The deputy testified that the DVS system indicated that Peterson’s driving status was canceled-IPS. That testimony was supported by the district court’s receipt of a certified copy of Peterson’s driving record, which indicated that his license was canceled-IPS when the stop occurred. The district court concluded that the information from the DVS provided a lawful basis for the traffic stop and denied the motion to suppress.

Peterson appealed arguing that his convictions must be reversed because the state failed to prove that his driving privileges were “actually canceled” at the time of the traffic stop.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, noting:

"When an officer observes a violation of the traffic laws, there is reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.” State v. Poehler, 935 N.W.2d 729, 733 (Minn. 2019). But the “actual violation of the vehicle and traffic laws need not be detectable.” State v. Pike, 551 N.W.2d 919, 921-22 (Minn. 1996). The police need only “show that the stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” 

***

"Traffic stops are routinely based on DVS record checks conducted from police squad cars. See, e.g.. Pike, 551 N.W.2d at 921-22 (upholding traffic stop based on officer’s license-plate check, which revealed the registered owner’s license was revoked). And the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[i]t is constitutional for an officer to make a brief, investigatory, [traffic] stop of a vehicle if the officer knows that the owner of the vehicle has a revoked license,” as long as the officer is “unaware of any facts which would render unreasonable an assumption that the owner is driving the vehicle.” Id. at 920. Under the reasoning of Pike, we similarly conclude that it is constitutional for an officer to make a traffic stop based on current DVS records, so long as the officer is unaware of any facts that would make an assumption that the records are accurate unreasonable. The record does not reveal any basis to conclude that the deputy in this case was aware of such facts."

"We note that even if the DVS records in this case were incorrect, it does not necessarily follow that the resulting stop was invalid because “honest, reasonable mistakes of fact are unobjectionable under the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243, 254 (Minn. 2003). So long as the deputy was unaware of any facts reasonably suggesting that the DVS records regarding Peterson’s license status were inaccurate, his reliance on incorrect DVS records would constitute an unobjectionable mistake of fact...absent a showing that the officer’s reliance on the accuracy of the DVS records was unreasonable, the records provided a lawful basis for the traffic stop, regardless of their accuracy."

Moral Of The Story: Close enough for government work!

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. Mattingly (Decided February 6, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands, once again, for the proposition that a vehicle must travel within its lane.

In Mattingly, the Defendant was driving a pickup truck that was towing a trailer containing an ATV.  Carlton County Deputy Sheriff David Radzak was following the vehicle when the deputy saw the truck signal a right turn, slow down, and cross the fog line separating the lane of travel and the right shoulder. He watched the truck continue slowly down the shoulder for about 20 seconds. Deputy Radzak activated his squad car’s flashing red and blue overhead lights and pulled onto the shoulder behind the truck.

Mr. Mattingly was subsequently arrested and charged with drunk driving. His attorney challenged the stop arguing the deputy did not have the constitutional authority to stop the vehicle.  

The District Court denied the defense motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:

"We are unpersuaded by Mattingly’s contention that Deputy Radzak lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him...An officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop if he sees a driver commit a traffic violation. State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Minn. 2004)...we are satisfied that Deputy Radzak had reasonable suspicion to stop Mattingly’s truck.

"Minnesota motorists may drive only on the roadway and may not cross the fog line marking the lane of travel. Soucie v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 957 N.W.2d 461, 464-65 (Minn. App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2021). They may not drive on the shoulder except in circumstances not relevant here: “Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway ...” Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 1 (2020). A “roadway” includes only “that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder.” Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 68 (2020). The legislature has carved out exceptions to the prohibition against driving on the shoulder, such as to perform a U-tum or to operate certain buses. Minn. Stat. §§ 169.19, subd. 2, .306 (2020). By leaving the roadway and operating on the shoulder in a manner that meets no statutory exception, Mattingly engaged in driving conduct for which a police officer could temporarily seize him by stopping his truck."

"We are not persuaded otherwise by Mattingly’s assertion at oral argument that an emergency exception applies. He relies on Minnesota Statutes section 169.18, subdivision 7(1) (2020), but his reliance is misplaced. That subdivision applies to roadways that have “been divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic” and prohibits a driver from leaving his lane until he “first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety." Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 7. This lane-change statute does not expressly or implicitly authorize a motorist to operate his vehicle on the shoulder for safety reasons. Although we need not address the district court’s motorist-assistance rationale to justify the deputy’s encounter with Mattingly, we observe that, if an emergency exception does exist and apply here because Mattingly was experiencing a safety issue, the deputy had a reason to activate his emergency lights wholly apart from reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense."

Moral Of The Story: Stay in your lane!

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.