The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Baumgartner v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided October 2, 2023, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that where the facts conflict, the lower court's findings prevail.
In Baumgartner, Olivia Police Sergeant Aaron Clouse initiated an investigative traffic stop after observing that a vehicle’s driver’s side brake light failed to illuminate. Mr. Baumgartner was subsequently arrested for DWI and he filed a challenge to the revocation of his license arguing that the officer did not have a basis to make the initial stop.
Officer Clouse testified at the license revocation hearing that he saw Baumgartner’s vehicle activate its righthand turn signal as it approached an intersection. Clouse observed that the vehicle’s turn signal illuminated but not the driver’s side brake light. Clouse testified that it was “very clear” that the driver’s side brake light failed to illuminate. Clouse stopped the vehicle for the equipment violation. Baumgartner testified that his brake lights did not illuminate because he drives manual transmission and prefers to reduce speed by downshifting the vehicle rather than use his brakes.
The district court received the video recording of the stop taken from the camera on Clouse’s squad car into evidence at the hearing. The video shows the passenger’s side brake light illuminate for a moment before the vehicle’s turn signal began blinking. The driver’s side brake light, however, did not illuminate as the passenger’s side light did. The squad video also depicts Baumgartner and Clouse testing the vehicle’s lights after Baumgartner pulled over. As Baumgartner pressed on the brakes of his vehicle, the video shows that the brake lights did not immediately illuminate. Eventually, however, both the driver’s and passenger’s side brake lights illuminated as Baumgartner and Clouse tested the brake lights.
The district court issued an order sustaining the revocation of Baumgartner’s driver’s license. It found that Clouse initiated the traffic stop based on his observation of an equipment violation—that the driver’s side brake light failed to illuminate—and that this observation provided sufficient suspicion to initiate the investigative detention.
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:
"Clouse’s testimony and the squad video support the district court’s finding. Clouse testified that he stopped Baumgartner’s vehicle because he “observed that the driver’s side [brake] light did not illuminate.” Clouse further explained that this it was “very clear” that the light failed to illuminate as the vehicle slowed down. In addition, the district court determined that “the vehicle[’s] . . . driver’s side brake light did not illuminate” but, “[t]he other taillights, including the passenger’s side brake light, appeared to be in working order.” Our review of the squad video does not leave us with the firm conviction that the district court erred in making this finding. Rather, consistent with Clouse’s testimony, the driver’s side brake light does not appear to illuminate as the passenger’s side brake light does before the turn signal begins to blink."
"Baumgartner directs us to his testimony that he would routinely downshift the manual transmission in the vehicle to avoid braking. The district court, however, discounted Baumgartner’s testimony, determining that Baumgartner’s testimony was “evasive, inconsistent, and not credible at times.” We must we defer to this credibility determination. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01 (“[D]ue regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”); see also Gada v. Dedefo, 684 N.W.2d 512, 514 (Minn. App. 2004) (“Based on the findings, we must assume that the district court found [the petitioner to be] credible.”); Umphlett v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 533 N.W.2d 636, 639 (Minn. App. 1995) (determining that the district court “implicitly found that officer’s testimony was more credible”), rev. denied (Minn. Aug. 30, 1995)."
"We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its factual finding that Clouse observed the driver’s side brake light malfunction because we defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, do not reweigh conflicting evidence, and there is evidence in the record to support the district court’s finding."
Moral Of The Story: A fact is not a fact until the district court finds that it is.
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.
