Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Smith (Decided September 30, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published) which stands for the proposition that in a DWI test-refusal case, the State does not have to prove that the officer requesting the breath test is properly certified to operate the testing equipment (i.e. the Data Master breath testing machine).

In Smith, the State of Minnesota charged appellant Ava Thadette Smith with one count of refusal to submit to a breath test, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(1) (2020), for refusing to submit to an evidentiary breath test after Smith was lawfully arrested based on suspicion of driving while impaired (DWI). The matter proceeded to a jury trial.

The deputy testified at trial that after placing Ms. Smith under arrest for DWI and bringing here to the Chisago County Jail, she informed Ms. Smith that refusal to submit to a breath test is a crime by reading her the statutorily required breath-test advisory.  After providing Smith an opportunity to contact an attorney, the deputy asked her if she would take a breath test. Smith refused, stating that she did not believe the breath-test machine would be accurate.

The deputy testified about her training in DWI enforcement, including field sobriety testing and roadside DWI investigation. The deputy stated that she received “all the standard training for DWI.” But the deputy did not specifically testify that she was trained to administer breath tests, nor did the deputy say that she was trained to operate the breath¬testing machine.

The Defendant was convicted by the jury of DWI Test Refusal and on appeal, she argued that the evidence was insufficient because the state did not prove that the deputy who requested that she submit to a breath test was fully trained to administer the test per Minnesota Statutes section 169A.51 (2020) (the implied-consent statute).

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, stating:

"On appeal, Smith relies on subdivision 7(c) of the implied-consent statute, which provides that “[t]he person administering a breath test must be fully trained in the administration of breath tests pursuant to training given by the commissioner of public safety.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 7(c). We are not persuaded that the state must prove a would-be test administrator’s training as an element of refusal to submit to a breath test."

"By its plain language, the training requirement in subdivision 7(c) governs a person who is “administering a breath test”—not a person requesting a breath test. That language makes clear that a breath-test administrator’s training comes into play only if a breath test is administered. Moreover, the rest of subdivision 7(c)—which limits liability for persons “drawing blood” at the direction of an officer—likewise applies only if a blood test occurs. Id. (providing that certain “qualified person[s] drawing blood at the request of a peace officer for the purpose of determining the concentration of alcohol, a controlled substance or its metabolite, or an intoxicating substance [are] in no manner liable in any civil or criminal action except for negligence in drawing the blood”). And when subdivision 7 is read as a whole, the other subparts govern circumstances in which a test takes place, not scenarios in which a test is requested and refused. See id., subd. 7(a) (defining who may draw blood), (b) (providing that “[t]he person tested has the right to have someone of the person’s own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any tests administered”). Thus, whether read in isolation or in the context of the statute as a whole, the plain language of the breath-test training requirement set forth in subdivision 7(c) controls how a test must be performed—and therefore applies only if a test is, in fact, administered. See Lampkin, 994 N.W.2d at 287; Robinson, 921 N.W.2d at 758. We are therefore unconvinced that this requirement is relevant if a breath test is refused."

***

"In sum, we hold that the requirement set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 169A.51, subdivision 7(c), that “[t]he person administering a breath test must be fully trained in the administration of breath tests pursuant to training given by the commissioner of public safety[,]” is not an element of the crime of refusal to submit to a breath test under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.20, subdivision 2(1). As a result, the state was not required to prove that the deputy who would have administered Smith’s test, if Smith had not refused that test, was properly trained in the administration of breath tests. Smith’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim therefore fails."

Moral Of The Story: Just say 'yes" to the test!

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

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 Peach v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided September 23, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that if you are not valid to obtain a driver's license in the State where the DWI was committed, you are not valid to obtain a driver's license in Minnesota.

Mr. Peach had three prior DWI's from Minnesota when he committed a fourth DWI in Wisconsin in 2021.  The Wisconsin conviction resulted in a "lifetime revocation" of his Wisconsin privilege to drive a motor vehicle.

In 2023, Mr. Peach applied for a Minnesota driver's license and sought to enroll in the Interlock program which would allow him to have an interlock-limited license. The application was denied because his driving privilege was still revoked in Wisconsin.

Mr. Peach filed a challenge in district court to the denial of his Minnesota license request but the district court sustained the application denial.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"Because appellant had three prior DWI offenses, under Wisconsin law he received a “lifetime” revocation of his driving privileges, and because appellant’s driving privileges have been revoked in Wisconsin, he may not apply for a driver’s license in Minnesota. See Minn. R. 7410.5500, subp 2 (“If an applicant’s driving privileges are withdrawn in any other state and the applicant applies for a driver’s license in Minnesota, then the applicant’s driving privileges must be reinstated in all other states before the applicant is eligible for driving privileges in Minnesota . . . .”)."

"Appellant argues that this is an “absurd” result because, if he had committed his fourth offense in Minnesota instead of in Wisconsin, he could enroll in IID. That may be true; persons who are convicted of a fourth Minnesota DWI offense are not necessarily convicted of violating Minn Stat. § 171.17, subd. 1(a)(9), and, if the statute they did violate is among those specified in Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 4(c), (d) (listing those eligible for the IID program), they are eligible to enroll."

"But it is also true that courts may presume the legislature does not intend an absurd result. Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1) (2022). The legislature’s determination that persons with outstanding license revocations in other states should not be allowed to obtain a Minnesota license through the IID program is not absurd. “[C]onvictions of another state should generally be recognized in the forum state . . . [unless] strong public policy interests of the forum state provide sufficient reason to override the general rule of recognition.” State v. Schmidt, 712 N.W.2d 530, 537, 539 (Minn. 2006)".

***

"It is equally true that this court “cannot supply that which the legislature purposely omits or inadvertently overlooks.” Martinco v. Hastings, 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (Minn. 1963). Thus, whether appellant would be entitled to enroll in IID if his fourth offense had been committed in Minnesota is irrelevant; his offense was committed in Wisconsin, is not included in Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 4(c), (d), and this court cannot sua sponte include it."

Moral Of The Story:  If you are going to drink, stay 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.

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. Marshall (decided September 9, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a search warrant is still valid if probable cause for its issuance still exists after the illegally obtained allegations in the warrant have been excluded.

In Marshall, the Defendant was stopped by the police and as the officer approached the driver's side window, the officer smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. Another officer arrived at the scene to assist.  

Marshall exited the SUV at the first officer’s request. As the first officer spoke with Marshall outside the SUV, he smelled the odor of marijuana coming from Marshall’s person. The first officer asked whether there was marijuana in the car, and Marshall said “no.” The first officer then asked, “When was the last time it was in there?” and Marshall responded, “It was not. . . never in there . . . like four hours ago we all was just chilling.” The first officer inferred that “chilling” “implied that [Marshall] was using marijuana hours earlier.” The first officer observed that Marshall’s pupils were “constricted,” which made him “concerned about impairment” by a drug other than marijuana.

The first officer seated Marshall in the squad car and searched Marshall’s SUV. In the “main area” of the SUV “where [Marshall] was sitting,” the first officer “observed there was some marijuana debris” and “a cup” with “a cough syrup or medicine odor, along with pop inside of it.” The first officer also found a backpack with “an empty prescription bottle” that “appeared to be a cough syrup.” The other officer found another prescription bottle in the backseat. The first officer returned to the squad car and conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, noting how Marshall’s pupils “reactfed] to light.”  The first officer saw the “presence of nystagmus, which led [him] to believe there might be . . . [a] narcotic involved.”

The first officer brought Marshall to the police station, read Marshall his Miranda rights, and asked if he would agree to “a full drug recognition evaluation” (DRE). Marshall agreed. Based on the DRE, the first officer suspected that Marshall was impaired by a stimulant, a narcotic analgesic, and cannabis. 

The first officer applied for a warrant to obtain a blood or urine sample from Marshall. The district court issued the warrant, and, after chemical testing, Marshall’s blood-test results showed the presence of oxycodone, oxymorphone, and cannabis.

The state charged Marshall with fourth-degree DWI under Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7) (2020), for operating a vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance.  Marshall moved to suppress “all evidence specified in the notice by the prosecuting attorney” and to dismiss the case, arguing that there was “no reasonable suspicion for the expansion of the stop” and “no probable cause for the search of [Marshall] and/or [his] vehicle.”

The District Court granted the Defendant's motion to suppress concluding that “constricted pupils and the smell of marijuana on the person” did not “create a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in the car.” The district court also rejected the state’s arguments that Marshall consented to the search of his backpack, reasoning that Marshall asked only “if the officer could retrieve his stuff from the car.”  The district court therefore concluded that the items found in the search of the SUV should be suppressed and excluded from the warrant affidavit.

The district court did not consider the result of the HGN test in the back of the squad car but concluded that the DRE was “fruit of the poisonous tree” because it “would never have happened but for the smell of the cups, the cough syrup, [and] the eye check.” The district court determined that the search-warrant affidavit should have excluded any reference to the “marijuana debris and two Styrofoam cups with what appeared to be pop and a medicine like odor coming from it,” the “empty bottles of a prescription liquid medication,” and the DRE. The district court ruled that the “warrant as rewritten is inadequate and would not be signed by a reasonable magistrate reviewing just the evidence that is admissible”; therefore, the district court suppressed Marshall’s blood-test results and dismissed the case.

The State appealed the district court ruling and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the lower court stating:

"In its ruling suppressing the blood-test evidence, the district court concluded that law enforcement did not have probable cause to search Marshall’s SUV based only on the smell of burnt marijuana and the first officer’s observation of Marshall’s constricted pupils. It consequently also concluded that the evidence obtained from that search—marijuana debris, the medicine-like odor emanating from the foam cups, and the empty prescription bottles for liquid medication—were not properly included in the warrant application because they were obtained unlawfully."

"...we conclude that the warrant application includes other facts that did not derive from the challenged search of Marshall’s SUV and which are independently sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant."

"In Minnesota, even if the application for a search warrant includes information that the issuing magistrate should not have considered, the warrant nonetheless may be supported by probable cause based on facts that were obtained independently of the tainted information."

***

"Similarly, and as alleged here, if a warrant application includes information that was impermissibly obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, exclusion of the evidence obtained through the search warrant is not required if the application also contains lawfully acquired evidence that is independently sufficient to support issuance of the warrant. State v. Hodges, 287N.W.2d 413, 415-16 (Minn. 1979). Thus, if we redact from the blood-sample search-warrant application all information obtained from the search of Marshall’s SUV, and if the facts that remain nevertheless establish probable cause, then we may conclude that the warrant was valid regardless of any taint on the redacted information."

"We conclude, however, that the district court erred by excluding the DRE results when evaluating probable cause for the warrant because the DRE was permissibly included in the warrant application based on the independent-source doctrine. The “independent source doctrine . . . will countenance introduction of otherwise illegally-seized evidence if the police could have retrieved it on the basis of information obtained independent of their illegal activity.” State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 849 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted)."

"Marshall’s constricted pupils, the odor of burnt marijuana on Marshall’s person and from the SUV, and Marshall’s statement about “chilling” from which the officer inferred recent marijuana use—all of which the first officer observed before the SUV search—more than adequately supported the officer’s initial suspicion that Marshall was impaired and more than adequately supported the officer’s request that Marshall participate in the DRE following his arrest on the outstanding warrant. The record thus establishes that law enforcement could have—and very likely would have—sought to determine whether Marshall had been driving while impaired by requesting a DRE, regardless of whether his SUV had been searched. Accordingly, it was error for the district court to reject the DRE results in its evaluation of probable cause for the search warrant."

"Having determined that the DRE was, at a minimum, validly supported by the first officer’s observations of Marshall’s constricted pupils, the odor of marijuana on his person and from the SUV, and Marshall’s recent use of marijuana, we finally consider whether the facts in the warrant application—minus the information derived from the SUV search— are sufficient to establish probable cause for blood-sample search warrant.

“Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Onyelobi, 932 N.W.2d at 281 (quotation omitted). Considering the validly obtained information in the search-warrant affidavit, we are satisfied that they establish a fair probability that a sample of Marshall’s blood would disclose evidence of a crime. We therefore conclude that the search warrant was supported by probable cause irrespective of whether the application properly included information obtained from the SUV search. We therefore reverse the district court’s decision to suppress the blood-test results."

Moral Of The Story: Do not submit to a DRE.

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.