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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Chrismen (Decided November 4, 2024, Minnesota Court Of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that the Court of Appeals will rarely reverse the lower court if it refused to grant a downward departure from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines.

In Chrismen, the Defendant plea guilty to a felony DWI and was facing a 42-month presumptive prison sentence. The Defendant moved for a downward dispositional departure arguing he was particularly amenable to probation given his remorse and the positive steps he had taken since the offense occurred. Chrismen emphasized that the pre-sentence investigation report noted he “would be a good candidate for sobriety in the community” and that he had only two speeding tickets and no criminal offenses in over 20 years.

The state opposed Chrismen’s motion (of course), arguing that this was not Chrismen’s first felony DWI offense, Chrismen’s claimed participation in treatment was unverified, and there was no support for Chrismen’s assertion that he is amenable to probation.

The District Court, at sentencing, noted it had reviewed all the materials and acknowledged the struggles Chrismen has overcome, but noted concerns about the violent act towards the deputy and the possibility that similar violence could occur if Chrismen was intoxicated. The district court found that Chrismen was not particularly amenable to probation and sentenced him to serve the presumptive term of 42 months in prison with five years of conditional release.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court noting:

"A mitigating factor that may provide a substantial and compelling reason for departure is a defendant’s particular amenability to probation. Minn. Sent’g Guidelines 2.D.3.a(7) (2022); State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660, 668 (Minn 2006). Whether a defendant is particularly amenable to probation depends on various factors, including the defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude while in court, and the support of family and friends. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). But even if some of these factors exist, a district court need not grant a downward dispositional departure. State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Minn. App. 2009). "

***

"We will only reverse a district court’s refusal to depart from the presumptive sentence in the 'rare' case. State v. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981)."

***

"The record demonstrates that the district court carefully considered the arguments both for and against a downward dispositional departure, as well as other information in the record like the presentence investigation report and materials that addressed Chrismen’s record on probation, motivation to change, and remorse. And while we recognize the positive steps Chrismen has taken since his DWI conviction, this is not the 'rare' case that requires us to reverse the district court’s decision to impose a presumptive sentence. Kindem, 313 N.W.2d at 7. The abuse-of-discretion standard gives the district court broad discretion in its sentencing decisions and we will 'not interfere with the sentencing court’s exercise of discretion, as long as the record shows the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.' State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251, 255 (Minn. App. 2011) (quotation omitted)."

Moral Of The Story: If you don't win at the district court, the Court of Appeals is not going to help you.

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.

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 Alleman v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided March 4, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that a partially covered license plate is a constitutionally sufficient reason for the police to stop a motor vehicle. 

In Alleman, a Crow Wing County police officer was following the Petitioner's motorcycle when the officer noticed Mr. Alleman's backpack was obstructing the rear license plate of the motorcycle.  The officer initiated a traffic stop and ultimately arrested Mr. Alleman for DWI and revoked his driver's license.

Mr. Alleman filed a challenge to the license revocation arguing the officer did not have a constitutionally sufficient basis to justify the initial stop.  The district court denied the challenge and upheld the license revocation.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, noting:

"...an officer does not violate the prohibition if [the officer] stops a vehicle to conduct an investigation based on the officer’s reasonable suspicion that the driver is engaging in criminal activity.” Soucie v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 957 N.W.2d 461, 463-64 (Minn. App. 2021), rev. denied (Minn. June 29, 2021). Reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968); see Magnuson v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 703 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Minn. App. 2005). “Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Minn. 2004)."

***

"Under Minnesota Statutes section 169.79, subdivision 7 (2022), “[t]he person driving the motor vehicle shall keep the [license] plate legible and unobstructed ... so that the lettering is plainly visible at all times.” See Minn. Stat. § 169.011, subd. 44 (2022) (defining “motorcycle” as a “motor vehicle”). Based on the squad-car video, the district court found that it was “very clear that the backpack obstruct[ed] at least three quarters of the license plate.” Alleman disputes the district court’s finding that his license plate was obstructed by the backpack."

"Alleman contends that two screenshots from the squad-car video show that his license plate was not covered by the backpack before Officer Lindman stopped his motorcycle. But a review of the squad-car video plainly shows that the license plate was partially obstructed by the backpack before Officer Lindman stopped Alleman’s motorcycle. Because the record supports the district court’s finding that Alleman’s license plate was obstructed by the backpack, the district court did not err by concluding that Officer Lindman had reasonable suspicion to stop Alleman’s motorcycle."

Moral Of The Story: Be careful of what you are packing.

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 Obowa v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided February 5, 2024, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands, once again, for the proposition that any vehicle equipment violation justifies the stop of the motor vehicle.

In Obowa, a law-enforcement officer with the Lino Lakes Public Safety Department was driving northbound on Lake Drive. A passenger vehicle was driving directly in front of the officer’s squad car. When the driver of the vehicle braked to stop for a red light, the officer observed that one of the vehicle’s brake lights was not working. The officer then initiated a traffic stop by pulling over the vehicle.

The officer spoke to the driver, James Obowa, and the officer could smelled the odor of alcohol, and observed Mr. Obowa exhibited bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Further testing resulted in the arrest of Mr. Obowa for DWI and in the revocation of his driver's license.

Mr. Obowa challenged the license revocation but the district court sustained the revocation. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation, stating:

"A law enforcement officer may, however, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop of a motor vehicle when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Taylor, 965 N.W.2d 747, 752 (Minn. 2021) (quotation omitted). To satisfy the reasonable-suspicion standard, the officer “must articulate a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted)."

"In the traffic-stop context, the bar for reasonable suspicion is relatively low. See Taylor, 965 N.W.2d at 752, 757. “Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818, 823 (Minn. 2004)."

***

"Obowa challenges the district court’s determination that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to support the traffic stop. More specifically, Obowa contends that the district court’s decision is based on a mistake of law and a mistake of fact because the record does not reflect that the officer had an objective basis to suspect that Obowa was operating his vehicle in violation of a traffic law. Based on our review of the applicable traffic laws and the record in this case, we are not persuaded."

"Minnesota law requires that a vehicle’s stop lamps and signal lamps “must at all times be maintained in good working condition.” Minn. Stat. § 169.57, subd. 3(a) (2022). In State v. Beall, we clarified that the statute “unambiguously applies to all lamps with which a vehicle is equipped.” 771 N.W.2d 41, 45 (Minn. App. 2009) (emphasis added). We concluded that “[a] vehicle with an inoperable [] brake light is operated unlawfully in violation of [section 169.57, subdivision 3(a)].” Id. And we held that an officer’s observation of a violation of that statutory provision “gives rise to objective, reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying a traffic stop.” Id.

"Beall instructs that an officer’s mere observation of an inoperable brake light is sufficient to justify a traffic stop. See id. That is exactly what the officer testified to in this case. At the implied-consent hearing, he stated that “when the vehicle applied its brakes, the driver’s-side brake light was inoperable.” This testimony is sufficient to support the traffic stop based on a violation of section 169.57, subdivision 3(a). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in its determination that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Obowa."

Moral Of The Story: An ill equipped car is like living with a snitch.

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.

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. London (Decided May 22, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that being overcharged initially does not require a dismissal of the subsequent correct charge.  

In London, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and was initially charged with First Degree (i.e.Felony) DWI based upon a prior Wisconsin felony DWI conviction.  Once a felony DWI, always a felony DWI, provided the previous felony DWI was from Minnesota.  Since the previous felony in this case was from Wisconsin, the Anoka County Attorney eventually recognized the mistake and dismissed the felony charge.

Prior to the felony dismissal, London posted $5,000 bail and was released with conditions, including compliance with the Intensive Supervision Alcohol Program (ISAP). After two ISAP violations alleging a positive test for alcohol and a failure to abstain from alcohol, as well as London’s failure to appear for a court hearing, the district court revoked London’s release with conditions. London spent a total of 45 days in custody related to the felony charge. 

The Fridley City attorney then took over the case and charged Mr. London with Gross Misdemeanor DWI refusal and Misdemeanor DWI. London then moved to dismiss these charges “in the interests of justice,” citing the district court’s authority to dismiss under Minnesota Statutes section 631.21 (2022) and Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.02. London argued that he was improperly deprived of his liberty and suffered financial loss because the bail and the conditions of release associated with the felony case should never have been imposed. The state opposed the motion to dismiss, and the district court denied it.

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, noting:

"Under section 631.21, a district court “may order a criminal action, whether prosecuted upon indictment or complaint, to be dismissed.” The district court “may order dismissal of an action either on its own motion or upon motion of the prosecuting attorney and in furtherance of justice.” Minn. Stat. § 631.21. Because the use of the word “may” in the statute implies the exercise of discretion, we review the district court’s denial of London’s motion to dismiss for an abuse of that discretion. See Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd. 15 (2022); cf State v. Olson, 884 N.W.2d 395, 398 (Minn. 2016) (stating that rule 30.02’s use of “may” “connotes discretion, which means that the district court’s denial of [defendant’s] motion ‘to dismiss the complaint, indictment, or tab charge’ is reviewed only for abuse of such discretion”)."

"London argues that the district court improperly limited its discretion by applying the wrong standard to his motion to dismiss. Specifically, he argues that the district court erred by requiring him to prove undue delay, establish prejudice, and prove prosecutorial misconduct."

"In its order denying the motion to dismiss, the district court recounted the events of the county’s and the city’s cases against London. It found that London had failed to demonstrate that the city attorney had unnecessarily delayed bringing the case to trial, that London had been prejudiced by the city attorney’s action, or that the city attorney had acted improperly or sought an unfair advantage. The district court also characterized as “mere speculation” London’s contention that he could have avoided custody had conditions never been imposed in the felony case. Finally, the district court rejected the argument that the public would not be served by further prosecution given the district court’s “serious concerns” about London’s use of alcohol and the danger it poses to the public. The district court concluded, “After considering all the circumstances, including the effects upon Mr. London, the prosecution, and society as a whole, the Court believes more harm than good would flow from dismissing this matter.”

"...London’s argument mischaracterizes the district court’s order. London asserts that the district court limited its review to the requirements for a dismissal pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.02, which authorizes a district court to dismiss a case based on undue delay, but only if the defendant shows they have been prejudiced. See State v. Banks, 875 N.W.2d 338, 341, 345 (Minn. App. 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 28, 2016). But, as described above, the order denying London’s motion demonstrates that the district court did not so limit its analysis. To the contrary, the district court reviewed London’s arguments, the prior proceedings in both this case and the felony case, and the surrounding circumstances and decided not to dismiss the charges. London also does not identify additional facts or arguments the district court should have considered and thus has not demonstrated that the district court limited its discretion when evaluating his motion to dismiss."

Moral Of The Story: If there is any basis for a court's ruling it will rarely if ever constitute an abuse of discretion.

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.

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. Johnson (Decided June 27, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Nonprecedential) which stands for the proposition that jury instructions are to be read and interpreted in their entirety. 

In Johnson, the Defendant was arrested for DWI and was read the Minnesota breath test advisory at a police station in St. Louis County. Defendant was asked to provide a sample of his breath and Johnson declined.  The officer, without first obtaining a search warrant, then asked the Defendant to submit to a urine test.  Johnson again declined to submit to testing. Mr. Johnson was subsequently charged and convicted of felony refusal to submit to a breath test.

On appeal, Johnson argued that his conviction for test refusal must be reversed because the district court's instruction did not specify which chemical test the state had to prove Johnson refused when he refused both the breath test and a urine test. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction noting that since the Defendant did not object to the instructions in the district court, the appellate court would use the "plain error" standard of review: 

"When reviewing jury instructions for plain error, appellate courts review them in their entirety to determine whether the instructions fairly and adequately explain the law of the case...Appellate courts will not reverse a district court’s decision on jury instructions absent an abuse of discretion. Id. District courts abuse their discretion if the instructions “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law,” State v. Taylor, 869 N. W.2d 1, 14-15 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted), or if the instructions omit an element of the charged offense, State v. Stay, 935 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Minn. 2019)."

"Once an officer has (1) probable cause to believe that the person was driving while impaired, (2) placed the person under lawful arrest for DWI, (3) requested that the person take a breath test, and (4) read the person the breath-test advisory, Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subds. 1(b)(1), 2 (2018), “[i]t is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test. . . of the person’s breath.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(1)."

"However, a person cannot be prosecuted for refusing to submit to an unconstitutional warrantless blood or urine test. State v. Thompson, 886 N.W.2d 224, 234 (Minn 2016)."

"Here, the district court instructed:

First, a peace officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant drove, operated, or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. . . .

Second, the peace officer placed the defendant under lawful arrest for driving while impaired. . . .

Third, the defendant was given the breath-test advisory by the peace officer.

Fourth, the defendant was requested by the peace officer to submit to a chemical test of the defendant’s breath.

Fifth, the defendant refused to submit to the test."

Johnson claimed that because the fifth element of the jury instructions failed to specify which test the state had to prove Johnson refused and instead merely said “the test,” the jury was not properly instructed that Johnson could only be convicted if he refused the breath test, not the urine test.

The Court of Appeals rejected Johnson's claim, holding:

"The jury instructions given by the district court included all elements of the offense and fairly explained the law. Milton, 821 N.W.2d at 805. When read “in their entirety,” it is clear that the fifth element was referring to a breath test. Id. The contested sentence— “Fifth, the defendant refused to submit to the test”—immediately followed two sentences that listed the “[tjhird” and “[fjourth” elements of the offense and included “breath test” and “test of the defendant’s breath.” The first sentence of the instructions also stated that “whoever refuses to submit to a chemical test of the person’s breath ... is guilty of a crime.” There was no reference to a urine test in the jury instructions. Thus, when the fifth element is read in context, the jury instructions did not “confuse, mislead, or materially misstate the law.” Taylor, 869 N.W.2d at 14-15 (quotation omitted). Consequently, under the plain-error analysis, the district court did not err in its jury instructions."

Moral Of The Story: If you refuse to submit, they will convict.

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.

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. Waltz (Decided March 21, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police get to search the car and arrest the driver when the occupied vehicle reeks of marijuana.

In Waltz, the Montevideo police received a report that a female was passed out in a running car in a convenience store parking lot.  The first officer to arrive approached the car and after some effort, awoke the unconscious driver, Ms Waltz.  The officer had to knock on the window and shine his flashlight in her eyes to awaken Ms. Waltz. 

While standing next to the car, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana and when the defendant rolled down her window, the odor was even more intense.

Two other officers arrived together in a second patrol car. They approached the car and confirmed that there was a strong marijuana smell.

The Defendant was asked to exit the car and the vehicle was searched. The police found a plastic grocery bag containing approximately ten grams of marijuana.  

The police asked Waltz whether she had been using marijuana, and she admitted to smoking a blunt  a few hours before. Suspecting that Waltz was under the influence of marijuana or a controlled substance, the sergeant asked Waltz to perform some field sobriety tests and conducted a preliminary breath test, which revealed a zero alcohol concentration. The sergeant arrested Waltz based on suspicion that she had been driving while impaired and provided her with a Miranda warning.

The Defendant was charged with DWI and possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Walz moved to suppress the evidence of marijuana that police seized from her car and her admissions to the police that she had smoked marijuana.

Waltz claimed that the police had no basis to detain her for a criminal investigation or to search her car once they determined that she was not in distress. And she asserted that the police unlawfully interrogated her about her marijuana use without providing a Miranda warning. Waltz argued that these constitutional violations require suppression of the drug evidence found in her car and on her person, the evidence of her impairment, her statements to the police, and any evidence obtained as a result of her statements. 

The district court denied her motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed stating:

"In some circumstances, the police may seize an individual without a search warrant. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). One exception to the warrant requirement permits limited investigatory seizures. State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn. 2004)."

"Under this exception, a police officer may briefly detain an individual when the officer “has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Timberlake, 744N.W.2d 390,393 (Minn. 2008) (quotingIllinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119,123 (2000)) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). But an investigatory detention “may become invalid if it becomes ‘intolerable’ in its ‘intensity or scope.’” Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 364 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 17-18). Thus, each subsequent intrusion “must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered the initiation of the investigation permissible.” State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125, 135 (Minn. 2002). And to expand the scope of an investigatory seizure, the police must have independent probable cause or a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify the subsequent intrusion. Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-21)."

"Here, the district court concluded, and we agree, that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity that justified a limited investigatory detention. Waltz was sleeping in a running car in a public place at 11:00 p.m. When the sergeant approached the car, he smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana. Waltz was difficult to rouse; the sergeant was required to bang on the car window and shine his flashlight in her eyes. The marijuana smell became more intense when Waltz finally rolled her window down. And the two other officers who arrived to assist with the investigation confirmed that they could smell marijuana even while standing three feet away from Waltz’s car. Given these facts, the officers had reason to suspect that Waltz was driving while impaired and that she possessed marijuana in a motor vehicle. Either of these suspicions provided a basis for an investigatory detention. See State v. Doren, 654 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Minn. App.2002) (stating that a car passenger’s “extraordinary nervousness,” the smell of burned marijuana emanating from the passenger’s location, and the passenger’s appearance of being under the influence together provide a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 26, 2003).

"Waltz argues that even if the initial seizure was valid, the officers unlawfully expanded the scope of the stop by searching her car. The state responds that the officers’ actions were permissible under another exception to the warrant requirement—the automobile exception."

"The automobile exception allows police to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” State v. Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). Determining whether there is probable cause requires an objective inquiry that evaluates the totality of the circumstances in a particular case. Id. These circumstances include the reasonable inferences that law enforcement officers may make based on their training and experience. State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011)."

"The state points out that “[t]he detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.” State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn. App. 1984); see also State v. Wicklund, 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn. 1973). And the state notes that undercurrent Minnesota law, the smell of marijuana provides probable cause for a vehicle search. See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (stating that the automobile exception applies when an officer smells marijuana emanating from a car)."

"While we do not disagree with the state’s summary of the law, we note that the factual circumstances here included more than an odor of marijuana. Again, Waltz was found soundly sleeping in a running car near midnight. The car was parked in a convenience store parking lot. When finally awakened, Waltz said that she was meeting someone. Three trained police officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana—including fresh marijuana—coming from the car. And Waltz admitted to smoking marijuana in the car earlier. Based on all of these facts, the officers reasonably believed that the car would contain contraband. Because the officers had probable cause to search, their search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement."

Moral Of The Story: You snooze. You lose.

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 Wadekamper v. Commissioner of Public Safety which stands for the proposition that a DWI license revocation is never to old to effect your license.

In Wadekamper, the Petitioner was arrested for DWI on June 3, 2020. Mr. Wadekamper had five prior impaired-driving incidents from 1974, 1977, 1983, 1986, and 1994. Pursuant to statute, the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked the Petitioner's license for six years.

The Petitioner filed a challenge to the license revocation seeking a judicial review hearing.  The hearing was held, at which time the Petitioner conceded that there were no factual disputes but that he wanted to challenge the length of the six-year license revocation. Petitioner told the district court he only wanted to submit written briefs as testimony or oral argument was not required.

Petitioner submitted a written argument in the form of a letter to the district court, again challenging only the lawfulness of the six-year license-revocation period. He acknowledged that, under the license-revocation statute, the revocation period is not less than six years for a person with four or more prior impaired-driving offenses and conceded that he had more than four prior DWIs. Petitioner nevertheless argued that his prior DWIs should not be considered in determining the length of his license revocation because the prior impaired-driving incidents were “stale.” Petitioner also argued that the license-revocation statute requiring the district court to consider all prior DWIs, without requiring a prior enhancement warning, violated due process. Petitioner cited no legal authority in support of his due-process argument.

The district court rejected Petitioner's arguments and sustained the commissioner’s license revocation. The district court first determined that, because the length-of- revocation issue is outside of the exclusive list of issues that the district court is authorized to review at an implied-consent hearing under Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b), appellant could not raise it. See Axelberg v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 848 N.W.2d 206, 208-09 (Minn. 2014) (holding that issues a driver may raise at an implied-consent hearing are limited to those falling within topics listed in Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b)). The district court then stated that the revocation period is mandated by the license-revocation statute and the commissioner had no discretion to ignore any qualifying prior impaired-driving offenses. The district court noted that Petitioner cited no legal authority for his claim that the lack of an enhancement-warning requirement in the license-revocation statute violated his due- process rights and declined to consider it. 

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"Appellant appears to argue that the district court denied him procedural due process by denying him a meaningful hearing. Whether the government violated a person’s procedural due-process rights is a question of law that we review de novo. Sawh v. City of Lino Lakes, 823 N.W.2d 627, 632 (Minn. 2012). The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit the state from depriving any person of liberty or property without due process of law. U.S. Const, amend. XIV; Minn. Const, art. I, § 7. The suspension of a driver’s license implicates a property interest that triggers due-process protections. See Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U.S. 1, 12 (1979). Due process generally requires “adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Staeheli v. City of St. Paul, 732 N. W.2d 298, 304 (Minn. App. 2007) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976))."

"Here, appellant received a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The district court granted his request for an implied-consent hearing after the commissioner revoked his license. Appellant had an opportunity to argue his case before the district court. At the hearing, appellant stated that “the only issue was the length of his license revocation” and told the district court that he just wanted to submit briefs. The district court allowed appellant to submit a written argument after the hearing, which he did in the form of a letter. Appellant therefore had every opportunity to argue his case before the district court in both oral and written form. He received a meaningful hearing and all the procedural due process to which he was entitled."

"To the extent that appellant’s argument on appeal could be construed as a challenge to the district court’s denial of his constitutional claim that the lack of an enhancement warning violated his due-process rights, appellant’s argument still fails. In his letter to the district court, appellant’s only explicit reference to his due-process claim is a single line stating that “The legislation . . . permitting the use of incidents over twenty years ago to be used, without an enhancement warning, as a lifelong stepping stone for six years of ignition interlock is a violation of due process.”  The district court declined to address appellant’s due-process challenge because he cited no legal authority in support of his position. Courts do not consider claims that are unsupported by argument or citation to legal authority. See Stephens v. Bd. of Regents, 614 N.W.2d 764, 769 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 26, 2000). We therefore discern no error in the district court’s rejection of appellant’s undeveloped constitutional challenge."

Moral Of The Story: A License Revocation Never Forgets!

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.

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. Montonye (decided April 12, 2021, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a defendant has a right to a public trial at all phases of the proceeding.

In Montonye, the Defendant was charged with a DWI and went to trial in Stevens County, Minnesota. The Defendant was convicted and on appeal asserted his right to a public trial was violated when the Court examined a potential juror in chambers rather than in open court.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the Defendant and reversed his conviction, noting:

"The United States and Minnesota Constitutions, with identical language, grant criminal defendants the right to a public trial: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . public trial. . . U.S. Const, amend. VI; Minn. Const, art. I, § 6. The right to a public trial applies during all phases of trial, including voir dire of prospective jurors."

"Despite the text of the Sixth Amendment, the right to a public trial is not absolute. State v. Taylor, 869 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted). The closure of a courtroom may be justified if (1) ‘“the party seeking to close the hearing . . . advance[s] an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced,’” (2) the closure is ‘“no broader than necessary to protect that interest,”’ (3) the district court considers “‘reasonable alternatives to closing the proceeding,”’ and (4) the district court makes 'findings adequate to support the closure.'

***

"The state argues that Montonye’s right to a public trial was not implicated because a closure did not occur. Not all restrictions on access during a trial raise constitutional concerns—“[s]ome restrictions on access to the courtroom are so insignificant that they do not amount to a ‘true closure’ of the courtroom.” Petersen, 933 N.W.2d at 551 (quoting Taylor, 869 N.W.2d at 11-12). To determine whether a “true closure” occurred, courts look to several factors, including whether: (1) the courtroom was cleared of all spectators; (2) the proceedings remained open to the public and press; (3) there were periods where the public was absent; and (4) the defendant, the defendant’s family and friends, or other witnesses were excluded. Id. (citations omitted)."

"Here, during voir dire, when prospective jurors were being interviewed in a group setting in the courtroom, Juror W. disclosed that he had been in an accident involving a drunk driver. He explained that the accident had injured him and that he had been “pretty upset” at how the situation was handled. Still, Juror W. said that he did not think the prior incident would influence his ability to be fair and impartial. During this questioning, the district court stated, “I don’t want to get into too much details in front of everybody about what happened. I wonder whether we should ask him questions separate and apart from the other jurors. Counsel?” The state replied, “Perhaps,” and Montonye’s counsel remained silent. A few minutes later, the district court allowed the rest of the prospective jurors to take a break and said to Juror W., “I guess we could—yeah, we could take you in my office, my chambers, just ask you a little more detail about what’s going on and how you feel, what your experiences might have been . . . .” Counsel thereafter conducted voir dire of Juror W. with the judge in chambers. Proceedings were held off the record for about half an hour, and no record was made of the in-chambers voir dire.

"The state argues that a “true closure” did not occur because only one juror was individually questioned for a short period of time. He contrasts the case with Petersen, where we concluded that a true closure occurred when the courtroom was closed for approximately five to six hours of individualized questioning of prospective jurors. 933 N.W.2d at 551. While it is true that Petersen involved a more substantial closure of the courtroom, it does not preclude the in-chambers voir dire here from being a true closure. And, as we noted in Petersen, cases in which restrictions have been deemed not to be true closures “generally have involved the limited exclusion of certain identified persons while persons already present in the courtroom were allowed to remain.” Id. at 552 (citing State v. Zornes, 831 N.W.2d 609, 620-21 (Minn. 2013) (concluding that removing the victim’s brother, who was on the witness list, from the courtroom was not a true closure); Brown, 815 N.W.2d at 617-18 (concluding that locking the courtroom doors during jury instructions was not a true closure); State v. Lindsey, 632 N.W.2d 652, 660-61 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that removing two minor children was not a true closure); State v. Hicks, 837 N.W.2d 51, 61-62 (Minn. App. 2013) (concluding that closures for administrative proceedings typically held in chambers but conducted in the courtroom were not true closures))."

"Montonye argues that applying the relevant factors yields the conclusion that a true closure occurred here. We agree. While the district court did not clear the courtroom of spectators, the courtroom proceeding of voir dire took place away from the courtroom, in chambers, where spectators had no access. See Petersen, 933 N.W.2d at 552 (concluding that the “complete exclusion” of spectators from voir dire constituted a true closure). The proceeding was not open to the public or the press, and both were absent. See id. And, although it is unclear from the record whether Montonye, the defendant, was present, it is clear that Montonye’s family and friends and other witnesses were excluded. See id. Thus, the in-chambers questioning of Juror W. was a true closure."

"The next question in determining whether Montonye’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated is whether the closure was justified under the Waller factors."

"We note first that the district court did not satisfy the fourth Waller factor— specifically, it did not make findings adequate to support the closure. See Fageroos, 531 N.W.2d at 201-02; see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 4(4)(f). In general, in a courtroom-closure case, if a remand to the district court for additional findings “on whether there was a specific basis for closure” could remedy the improper closure, “then the initial remedy is a remand, not a retrial.” State v. McRae, 494 N.W.2d 252, 260 (Minn. 1992); see also Petersen, 933 N.W.2d at 553 (remanding for the district court to make findings concerning whether a closure was justified). On the record here, however, remanding for additional findings is unwarranted because two of the Waller factors cannot be met."

"In deciding to conduct in-chambers voir dire of Juror W., the district court stated that it did not “want to get into too much details in front of everybody about what happened” during Juror W.’s accident with a drunk driver and questioned whether voir dire of Juror W. should occur “separate and apart from the other jurors.” The district court’s expressed concern reasonably fits within the first Waller factor—that the closure would advance an overriding interest that would be otherwise prejudiced. See Fageroos, 531 N. W.2d at 201-02. The interest was that other jurors not be biased by Juror W.’s description of his negative experience."

"But the record provides no basis to find that the second and third Waller factors were met—namely, that the closure was no broader than necessary and that there were no reasonable alternatives to the closure. See id. It is clear on this record that the district court could have protected the interest of not letting Juror W.’s experience bias the other prospective jurors by excusing them from the courtroom and individually questioning Juror W. in open court. Because, on this record, the Waller factors cannot be satisfied, the appropriate remedy for the courtroom closure is a new trial and not a remand for additional findings."

"Because Montonye’s constitutional right to a public trial was violated, we reverse his convictions and remand this case to the district court for a new trial on all counts. Because our resolution of Montonye’s courtroom-closure argument is dispositive, we do not address the merits of his other two arguments claiming trial error."

Moral Of The Story: What happens in chambers should not stay in chambers.

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.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is Soucie v. Commissioner of Public Safety and State of Minnesota (Decided March 29, 2021, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Published), which stands for the proposition that "touching" a fog or lane line provides the police with a legitimate reason to stop a motor vehicle.

In August 2019, a Minnesota State Trooper stopped Mr. Soucie's vehicle and subsequently arrested him for DWI. Mr. Soucie filed a challenge to the legality of the stop.  

At the combined Omnibus and Implied Consent hearing the trooper testified that she saw "the right. . . side of Soucie’s vehicle move completely over the fog line” and “occasionally touch the fog line." The video recording depicted Soucie’s passenger-side tires cross the fog line entirely at the end of the entrance ramp as the car merged onto the highway, corroborating the trooper’s testimony. But the transcript of the hearing and the order that followed demonstrated that the district court did not discuss that movement across the fog line. The district court instead focused on the moment the car’s tires later merely touched the fog line.

The District Court denied the Defendant's motion to suppress and sustained the license revocation. The issue on appeal was whether "touching" a highway line provides a sufficient justification to authorize a stop of a motor vehicle. 

The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the lower court noting:

The trooper "...stopped Soucie’s car because she believed he had violated a statute requiring drivers to operate only within their own lane. That statute mandates that 'a vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from the lane until the driver has first ascertained that the movement can be made with safety.' Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. (1). We clarify that we are not deciding this appeal based on the trooper’s observation of Soucie’s passenger-side tires passing entirely over and beyond the fog line. Although the video recording corroborates the trooper’s testimony (as acknowledged by both attorneys during oral argument on appeal), the district court apparently did not notice this on its viewing. The state raised no related appeal challenging the district court’s factual omission as clear error, and neither party has briefed the question of whether an appellate court may hold a stop constitutional based on a violation that is unquestionably visible on a recording but that was apparently inadvertently missed by the district court. We therefore decide this appeal based on the factual findings of the district court, including specifically the finding that Soucie’s car (meaning his tires) touched the fog line. By 'touched,' it is clear from the district court’s description and our view of the recording that, only the outside edge of Soucie’s tires momentarily contacted the inside edge of the fog line."

"Soucie argues in essence that this touching is too insignificant to meet the statutory prohibition. We need only look to how we have construed the clear prohibition of section 169.18, subdivision 7(1), to reject this argument. In Kruse v. Commissioner of Public Safety, we held that driving with one’s outside tire completely on top of the fog line violates the statute. 906N.W.2d 554, 556 (Minn. App. 2018). The officer there had seen Kruse’s tire “move right and onto . . . but not over the fog line,” and we determined that this conduct violated the statute, justifying the traffic stop. Id. at 556, 560. The Kruse decision inspires inferences that we apply here."

***

"First, we infer that, under the statute, a lane is comprised of the area between the painted lines that demark it and does not include the lines themselves. To borrow from sports, a lane is like the area of play in basketball (where a player stepping on the boundary line is out of bounds) and unlike the area of play in tennis (where a ball landing on the boundary line is in bounds). Second, the statutory violation of moving a vehicle from the lane occurs when even a fraction of the vehicle extends outside its lane. The idea that one violates the statute by unsafely moving even part of one’s car from the lane arises not only from our holding in Kruse but also from a common-sense understanding of the danger the statute intends to avoid. It is self-evident that the statute aims to curb collisions with persons, obstacles, or vehicles outside of one’s lane, and dangerous collisions can occur when even a small portion of a car extends out of bounds. See Kruse, 906 N.W.2d at 559 (“Moreover, driving on the fog line could compromise the safety of any stopped motorist, pedestrian, or cyclist on the right side of the fog line.”); State v. Al-Naseer, 734N.W.2d 679, 681 (Minn. 2007) (“[A] car driven by Al-Naseer struck and killed a person who was changing a tire along the side of Highway 10.”). We can readily apply these premises to the facts here."

***

"Because operating a car with its tires touching the edge of the fog line constitutes moving a vehicle from the lane under Minnesota Statutes section 169.18, subdivision 7(1), the district court correctly concluded that [the] Trooper had reasonable suspicion to stop Soucie’s car for a traffic violation.

Moral Of The Story: If you are going to drive, stay in bounds.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI 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 State v. French (Decided November 23, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the use of machine or computer generated data.

In French, the Defendant was arrested for DWI in Becker County, Minnesota and the police obtained a search warrant for his blood.  The results of the blood test revealed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine. 

Mr. French was subsequently charged with felony DWI.  The defense subsequently learned that, "D.Z.", the scientist who analyzed French's blood, had retired and was not available to testify at trial.  The defense then moved to exclude the results of D.Z.'s lab report as D.Z. was unavailable to testify.

The district court concluded that “the BCA lab report prepared by [D.Z.] is inadmissible unless [D.Z.] herself testifies at trial.” But the court “reserved ruling as to whether another BCA scientist may testify as an expert witness at trial".

Over French’s objection, the district court allowed BCA scientist J.S. testify that French’s blood had been tested for the presence of controlled substances, but that she was not the analyst who conducted the testing. Although D.Z.’s report was not admitted into evidence, J.S. testified that she independently reviewed the raw data in the file associated with French’s case and concluded that French’s blood sample showed the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine.

The Defendant was convicted of Felony DWI and on appeal, he argued the admission of J.S.’s opinion testimony, that French’s blood tested positive for a controlled substance, violated his Confrontation-Clause rights because, “the BCA scientist who actually performed the test did not testify".

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction noting:

"As the state points out, French does not address this court’s decision in State v. Ziegler, 855 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. App. 2014). In that case, the defendant was charged with criminal vehicular operation (CVO) and reckless driving. Ziegler, 855 N.W.2d at 552. In preparing for trial, a state trooper used computer software to extract data from the defendant’s vehicle, such as the vehicle’s speed and brake activation prior to the accident at issue. Id. The software generated a report containing the data from the defendant’s vehicle. Id. At trial, however, the prosecution called a different state trooper who provided accident-reconstruction testimony based on his review of the machine¬generated report. Id. at 552-53. The testifying trooper admitted that he was not present when the software extracted the data from the defendant’s vehicle, or when the report was generated. Id. at 553. He also admitted that he did not know whether the software was working properly when the vehicle data was extracted, or whether all proper procedures were followed. Id."

"A jury found the defendant guilty of the charged offenses. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued that the district court violated her Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by admitting the data collected from her vehicle through the testimony of a trooper who was not present when the data was collected. Id. at 554. This court disagreed, concluding that “machine-generated data that do not contain the statements of human witnesses are not testimonial statements within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Id. at 558. In reaching its decision, the court recognized that “Melendez-Diaz, Bullcoming, Caulfield, and Weaver do not determine the issue presented in this case because in those cases, the objectionable evidence was not limited to machine generated data; it included out-of-court statements made by people regarding the data.” Id. at 555. But the court stated that “several federal circuit courts have addressed the issue and concluded that such data are not testimonial statements within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Id. The court then referred to a Seventh Circuit Court case, which “noted that a chemist’s report admitted into evidence had ‘two kinds of information: the readings taken from the instruments, and the chemist’s conclusion that these readings mean that the tested substance was cocaine’ and that only ‘the latter is testimonial as the Supreme Court used that word in Crawford.’” Id. at 556 (quoting United States v. Moon, 512 F.3d 359, 361-62 (7th Cir. 2008)). The court also referenced a Fourth Circuit Court case, which concluded that “‘printed data’ generated from chromatograph machines operated by lab technicians were not ‘statements of the lab technicians who operated the machines’ and thus ‘not out- of-court statements made by declarants that are subject to the Confrontation Clause.’” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Washington, 498 F.3d 225, 229-30 (4th Cir. 2007))."

"This case is akin to Ziegler. As in Ziegler, a machine generated the raw data related to French’s blood sample. Under Ziegler, the raw data is not testimonial. See id. at 558. Although the conclusions in D.Z.’s report are testimonial, the report was not admitted into evidence. Instead, J.S. testified regarding her independent review of the machine¬generated data. As in Ziegler, the admission of machine-generated data through J.S.’s testimony did not trigger French’s right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. See id. And as the court noted in Ziegler, any question regarding the foundation for J.S.’s opinion is not relevant to French’s Confrontation-Clause argument. See id. at 558 (stating that the defendant’s “concerns regarding the reliability of the data and the data-retrieval process are not resolved under the Confrontation Clause”). Accordingly, J.S.’s testimony about the presence of controlled substances in French’s blood did not violate French’s right to confrontation."

Moral Of The Story: Machine's don't lie. Only people do.

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 Jante v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided November 16, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that you will lose if your attorney does not raise the correct issue.

In Jante, a Douglas County Sheriff's deputy was on routine patrol when he saw a pickup truck stopped in a turn lane with its emergency lights on. The deputy stopped and approached the vehicle on the passenger side. Petitioner was standing outside of the vehicle next to the front passenger door. The door was open. At the Petitioner's feet were empty beer bottles and the truck’s ignition keys.

Seated in the backseat of the vehicle was a passenger.  Both the Petitioner and the backseat passenger claimed the other person was driving.  The Petitioner was arrested for DWI and his license was revoked.

The Petitioner filed a challenge to the license revocation challenging, "whether there was probable cause that the Petitioner was in physical control of the vehicle".   The Petitioner testified he was not the driver. The passenger also testified that she had lied to the police (because she was already on probation) and was in-fact the driver of the vehicle.

In addition, other witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf that they saw the Petitioner leave in his truck with the alleged passenger driving his vehicle.  

The district court sustained the revocation finding that the police had probable cause to believe the Petitioner was driving or in physical control of the motor vehicle.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, confining its analysis to whether there was "probable cause" to believe the Petitioner drove or was in physical control of the motor vehicle.

There are a number of cases [Eg. Liona v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 389 N.W.2d 210 (MN.App. 1986); Winder v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 392 N.W.2d 21 (MN.App. 1986); Rademacher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, _ N.W.2d _ (MN App. 2007, Unpublished)] which hold that when the Petitioner alleges (in his revocation petition )that he or she was not, in fact, the driver or operator or in physical control of the motor vehicle, the Commissioner then has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the  evidence, that Petitioner was, in fact, the driver.

In the present case, it appears the Petitioner only alleged the police did not have "probable cause" to believe he was in physical control, which is a much easier standard for the Commissioner to meet.

Moral Of The Story: If you have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, hire an experienced lawyer who will not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

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.

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. Ekiyor (Decided June 29, 2020, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a Defendant has no right to present an involuntary intoxication defense when the Defendant voluntarily ingested the drugs in question.

In Ekiyor, the Defendant was arrested for Felony DWI and during the booking process, he submitted to a partial breath test indicating his alcohol concentration level was .20%.  The Defendant also stated he had taken zolpidem (Ambien) as prescribed the previous evening.  Ekiyor further stated that he had been involved in a similar incident two months earlier; he woke up in the hospital after taking zolpidem, blacking out, and driving a vehicle. Ekiyor stated that the previous incident resulted in reckless-driving charges.

Prior to trial, Ekiyor sought to raise the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication or temporary insanity due to his ingestion of zolpidem and moved to admit expert testimony about the drug’s side effects. In support of his motion, Ekiyor submitted a report in which a forensic toxicologist opined that the ingestion of zolpidem can result in serious side effects—including sleep-driving—and that Ekiyor exhibited symptoms of intoxication due to zolpidem impairment. Ekiyor claimed that he could not present a complete defense if the jury was not provided with information about the side effects of zolpidem, which demonstrated that he lacked the general intent to drink and drive.

The district court denied Ekiyor’s motion to allow the forensic toxicologist to testify as an expert about the effects of zolpidem, concluding that the defenses of voluntary and involuntary intoxication were inapplicable to the case.

On Appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court, stating:

"We determine that Ekiyor’s argument that the district court erred by denying the expert’s testimony about the effects of zolpidem is misplaced given that the defense that he sought to raise—intoxication due to the ingestion of zolpidem—was unavailable to him."

"Ekiyor was charged with DWI and driving while under the influence of a combination of alcohol and a controlled substance. These are general-intent offenses because “[a]n unlawful intention or state of mind is not an element of a D.W.I. charge.” State v. Duemke, 352 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn. App. 1984). And the defense of voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a general-intent offense. See City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 238 N.W.2d 851, 854-55 (Minn. 1976) (noting that voluntary intoxication is a defense only if a specific intent or purpose is an element of the charged offense); see also State v. Martin, 591 N.W.2d 481, 486 (Minn. 1999) (noting that claim of temporary insanity caused by voluntary intoxication due to defendant’s use of alcohol or drugs not available as a defense). Further, the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication was also unavailable to Ekiyor. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.46, subd. 2 (recognizing affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication available only to rebut a charge of driving while under the influence of a Schedule I or II controlled substance); 152.02, subd. 5(c)(52) (classifying zolpidem as a Schedule IV controlled substance) (2016)."

"Finally, even if the defense of involuntary intoxication had been available to Ekiyor, he would have been unable to make the required showing necessary to raise this defense. As outlined in Altimus, the defense of involuntary intoxication is available only when: (1) “the defendant must not know, or have reason to know, that the prescribed drug is likely to have an intoxicating effect”; (2) “the prescribed drug, and not some other intoxicant, is in fact the cause of defendant’s intoxication at the time of his alleged criminal conduct”; and (3) “the defendant, due to involuntary intoxication, is temporarily insane.” 238 N.W.2d at 857."

"Here, there was evidence that the label of Ekiyor’s zolpidem prescription warned about its intoxicating effects and to avoid driving after taking it. Ekiyor also testified about a prior incident when he drove after ingesting a combination of zolpidem and Vicodin. And, finally, it is unlikely that Ekiyor would have been able to prove that zolpidem was the sole cause of his impaired driving given that there was evidence of alcohol in his system.

Because we determine that the defense of zolpidem intoxication was unavailable to Ekiyor, he was not denied his right to present a complete defense. Therefore, the district court did not err by excluding the expert’s testimony on the basis that it would not be helpful to the jury."

Moral Of The Story: Don't sleep and drive!

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.