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The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Taylor (Decided May 14, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police can rely entirely upon statements of a 3rd person to justify a Minnesota DWI vehicle stop.

In Taylor, a Wayzata police officer was on patrol in the City of Wayzata when he overheard a radio transmission from the Orono Police Department regarding a domestic disturbance in the City of Mound. The transmission indicated that the Orono Police Department received information from dispatch that a male individual "had shown up at a female's residence" and that a "verbal altercation" ensued. The female reported that she "believed the male was intoxicated" because he made "unusual" comments about wanting to kill Donald Trump. The female identified the male as appellant Brian Taylor, and stated that he left her residence in a red Jeep and would be "traveling on Highway 12."

The officer positioned his squad car along Highway 12, and a "couple of minutes" later, observed a red Jeep drive past his location. Officer Sharratt followed the Jeep and checked its license plate. The license check revealed that Taylor was the registered owner. The officer initiated a traffic stop because he believed that Taylor was involved in the reported domestic disturbance and may have been intoxicated.

Defendant Taylor was subsequently arrested for a DWI and he filed a motion to suppress arguing the initial stop was unconstitutional.  The motion to suppress was denied and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court noting:

"Taylor argues that the stop of his vehicle was unconstitutional because it was "based on a hunch developed after overhearing radio traffic of another department, and not based on any observations of the officer or facts known to him that would create a reasonable articulable suspicion that [Taylor] was involved in criminal activity." But the factual basis needed to maintain a routine traffic stop need not arise from an officer's personal observations; it may also be supplied by information acquired from another person, including an informant. Marben v. State, Dep 't of Pub. Safety, 294 N.W.2d 697, 699 (Minn. 1980). An officer properly stops a motor vehicle in reliance on a telephone tip when the caller identifies herself and states that a driver of a vehicle has just been nearby and appears to be intoxicated. See, e.g., City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd, 420 N.W.2d 887, 890-91 (Minn. 1988) (stating that stop was proper when based on identified gas-station attendant's tip regarding intoxicated driver); Magnuson v. Comm 'r of Pub. Safety, 703 N.W.2d 557, 560-61 (Minn. App. 2005) (stating that sufficient reasonable suspicion supported stop based on personal observations of an identified citizen that driver was drunk)."

Moral Of The Story:  Never get in an argument with a woman when you are drunk.

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 Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.

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 Schlicher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (Decided April 17, 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the idle curiosity of the police officer does not justify an automobile stop.

In Schlicher, a Wabasha police officer on patrol saw appellant David Kenneth Schlicher's car turn onto a narrow dirt road. The officer knew the private road led only to a commercial business, which was closed at that hour, so he followed appellant. As the officer drove down the dirt road, he observed appellant's vehicle coming toward him. The officer reversed his squad car because the road was too narrow for either car to drive past the other, and he "[did not] want to approach the vehicle from the front." The officer stopped his squad car near the end of the dirt road and exited his car. During this time, another police squad car arrived. Schlicher's car was still moving when the officer got out of his squad car. The officer approached the car and, after an investigation, arrested appellant for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Schlicher refused to take a breath test, and his license was revoked.

Schlicher filed a petition in district court challenging the revocation of his driving privileges and requesting a hearing. After the hearing the district court ruled, "that the officer's stop was constitutional and stated that, "the officer observed Schlicher vehicle turn into a narrow private dirt drive that led to a business which had been closed for hours . . . [which] gave the officer a reasonable articulable basis" to stop the appellant.

On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court stating:

"Under the Minnesota Constitution, a seizure occurs when, given the totality of the circumstances, "a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave." In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 780 (Minn. 1993)."

"Generally, no seizure occurs when an officer merely walks up to and speaks with a driver sitting in an already-stopped vehicle." Id. at 152. Conversely, with an already-stopped car, a police officer's actions of preventing a vehicle from moving by boxing the vehicle in and activating the squad car's sirens constitute a seizure because these actions create the impression that a reasonable person would believe that he or she is not free to leave."

"Here, the officer's squad car met appellant's vehicle head-on while appellant was driving down the private narrow road, toward the main road. The officer did not reverse his squad car out onto the main road, which would have given appellant complete access to the main road; instead, he stopped his car on the narrow dirt road, exited his vehicle, and began walking toward appellant's car while appellant was still driving toward him. Even though the officer believed appellant's car could have "squeezed by," appellant testified that he did not believe his car could drive past the officer's car in order to get to the main road.  Accordingly, considering the positioning of the officer's squad car on the narrow road, the fact that the officer exited his vehicle while appellant was still driving, and the fact that another squad car had arrived on scene, we conclude that the officer's actions constituted a seizure because no reasonable person in appellant's position would have felt free to leave."

"An investigative stop of a motor vehicle is a seizure, and in order to justify the stop, police must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity....Here, the officer did not articulate an objective basis for the seizure. There are no allegations that the officer became concerned with appellant's conduct, other than the fact that appellant was driving down a private narrow dirt road that led to a closed commercial business. In fact, the officer testified that his actions were motivated by his curiosity. This alone is insufficient to justify a seizure...The only factors to which the officer testified that would suggest criminal activity were the time of night, that he had never before seen anyone driving on that private narrow road, and that the narrow road led to a closed business. These factors are insufficient."

Moral Of The Story: Curiosity Can Kill Your Case!

If you or a loved one have been arrested for 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 questions.

Minnesota DWI Lawyer Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Berry, (decided January 26, 2015, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that when it comes to vehicle stops, the police may intrude upon your right to be left alone if they are half-assed certain that something is amiss. Argh!!!

In Berry, a White Bear Lake police officer heard loud noises and revving engines, coming from two motorcycles traveling northbound on White Bear Avenue. The officer confirmed that the violation came from these two motorcycles because there was no other traffic on the road. The officer then stopped the motorcycles in the parking lot of a nearby sports bar because the noise was in violation of a state statute and a city ordinance relating to muffler or motor vehicle noise.

The police officer approached the two motorcyclists and asked which one was making all the loud noise.  Mr. Berry admitted that the loud noise was coming from his "after-market" motorcycle.  The officer then noticed Mr. Berry appeared to be intoxicated and after running him through some field sobriety tests, arrested him for DWI.

The District Court in this case upheld the validity of the stop and on appeal, Mr. Berry argued that the stop of his motorcycle violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop when it was clear that he did not know if the loud exhaust was coming from appellant's motorcycle or from the other motorcycle. Appellant asserted that without an individualized suspicion of criminal activity on appellant's part, the officer had "nothing more than a gambler's hunch."

The Appellant relied upon Ascher v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, a supreme court case declaring unconstitutional the use of temporary roadblocks to stop large numbers of drivers in the hope of discovering evidence of alcohol-impaired driving. 519 N.W.2d 183, 187 (Minn. 1994) (A case argued and won by yours truly). 

In Ascher, the supreme court held that such roadblocks violated the Minnesota Constitution because the state failed to articulate a persuasive reason for dispensing with the individualized suspicion requirement.

So one would think that based on Ascher, the Appellant in this case had a pretty good argument. Alas, the Minnesota Court of Appeals did not agree, stating:

"We conclude that the basis for the stop in this case may have been 'minimal,' but the officer did testify that he stopped the motorcycles after hearing a violation of the traffic laws and the district court credited the officer's testimony. The officer's belief that one of two motorcycles was violating the noise laws is reasonable and sufficient to make the suspicion 'individualized,' in that the officer was not conducting a roadblock or stopping a large number of vehicles to see if one was violating the law. Under these circumstances, the district court did not err in holding the stop was lawful and supported by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity." 

Moral Of The Story: If you are going to drink and drive, keep quiet about it.

Posted by Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms
www.sessoms.com