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Case Of The Week is Schreyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety (Decided December 16, 2019, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Appellate Court does not know what constitutes a "seizure".

In Schreyer, the Petitioner became stuck in the snow while behind the wheel of a van.  A New Ulm police officer had been helping other stranded cars deal with approximately one foot of snow when he came upon the Petitioner's vehicle.

Two people were standing just ahead of the van and the Petitioner was sitting in the van’s driver’s seat. The van was still running. The people ahead of the van appeared to be trying to attach a tow rope to the van from a truck parked in front of it. Concerned that the van was a hazard to oncoming traffic, the officer turned on his rear emergency lights and parked nearby in the street.

The officer walked up to see if the people needed any help. He went to the driver’s side door of the van and tapped on the window, trying to get Schreyer’s attention. But Schreyer avoided all eye contact, staring ahead with both hands firmly on the steering wheel. The officer then went to the front of the van and tried tapping the windshield. And Schreyer turned his head away, seemingly trying to avoid eye contact with the officer. Noting this, the officer became concerned for the driver’s welfare and tapped on the driver’s window again. Schreyer did not respond.

The officer walked up to see if the people needed any help. He went to the driver’s side door of the van and tapped on the window, trying to get Schreyer’s attention. But Schreyer avoided all eye contact, staring ahead with both hands firmly on the steering wheel. The officer then went to the front of the van and tried tapping the windshield. And Schreyer turned his head away, seemingly trying to avoid eye contact with the officer. Noting this, the officer became concerned for the driver’s welfare and tapped on the driver’s window again. Schreyer did not respond.

The Petitioner's driver's license was subsequently revoked and he filed a challenge to the revocation arguing that the was unlawfully seized when the officer opened the door of his van.  The district court upheld the license revocation and on appeal the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed holding that: (1) no seizure occurred and, even if it did, (2) the seizure was lawful.

The Court of Appeals conclusion that no seizure occurred does not make any sense.  The Court correctly states:

"A person is seized when a reasonable person in their position would not feel free to leave or an officer restrains their liberty by physical force or show of authority. In re Welfare ofE.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993). And seizures are assessed in light of the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877(1980)."

"Generally, when a police officer stops a vehicle, it is a seizure. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996). But Minnesota courts have held that it does not, without more, constitute a seizure for an officer simply to walk up and talk to a driver sitting in an already stopped car. State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756, 757 (Minn. 1980). This is particularly true when an officer approaches a parked car to see if the occupants need help. See State v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687, 690, 693 (Minn. App. 2012) (concluding that it was not a seizure but a welfare check for an officer to approach a car stopped on the interstate with a passenger vomiting out the side). In fact, “an officer has not only the right but a duty to make a reasonable investigation of vehicles parked along roadways to offer such assistance as might be needed and to inquire into the physical condition of persons in vehicles.” Kozak v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 359 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn App. 1984)."

But when the officer opened the door of his vehicle a seizure occurred.  Not only would a person not feel free to leave once the door has been opened, but the open door prevents a person from lawfully driving away.  

The court correctly concludes that "even if a seizure occurred, it was justified".  But to claim there was no seizure in the first place is just plain wrong.

Moral Of The Story:  If the police are gentlemen and open your car door for you, you are now free to leave.

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

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Helgeson (Decided January 30, 2017, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the Court of Appeals does not understand their own standard for a what constitutes a "seizure".

In Helgeson, at approximately 3:00 a.m. on March 8, 2015 a Stearns County Deputy Sheriff observed a vehicle with two occupants idling in a St. Cloud apartment complex's parking lot. The vehicle had its headlights on and was parked about five feet off of the roadway. The officer ran the license plates and discovered the vehicle was registered to an address in Sauk Centre. The officer parked his squad vehicle behind the vehicle but did not activate his emergency lights. The officer then approached the vehicle with his flashlight on and identified the driver as the appellant, Arron Helgeson. The officer subsequently determined the appellant was drunk and placed him under arrest for DWI.

The appellant moved in the district court to suppress all the evidence arguing that the officer seized him without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.  The district court denied the motion to suppress and on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, stating:

"Appellant argues that the investigating officer's actions constitute a seizure because the officer 'boxed [his] car in with a marked squad car.' The officer testified that there was room for appellant to back around the officer's squad vehicle. The district court reviewed the investigating officer's testimony, along with squad video from the night of the incident and the assisting officer's report, and determined that appellant was 'not seized when the [investigating officer] initially approached him,' because the officer parked behind appellant's vehicle 'without his emergency lights on and parked ... so that [appellant] could have backed around [the squad vehicle] in order to leave.'

"We agree with the district court. In Minnesota, a seizure occurs when "a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave," given the totality of the circumstances. In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 783 (Minn. 1993). Not every interaction between a police officer and a citizen amounts to a seizure. State v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687, 692 (Minn. App. 2012). "Courts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk ... to a driver sitting in an already stopped car." Id. (quotation omitted); see, e.g., Mi, 873 N.W.2d at 152. Here, the evidentiary record, including the squad video, supports the district court's finding that the investigating officer pulled up behind appellant's already-parked vehicle but did not position his squad vehicle in such a way as to completely block appellant's exit. Further, the officer did not use any physical force or make an express show of authority toward appellant. Cf State v. Cripps, 533 N.W.2d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995) (noting that an officer's use of physical force or show of authority may constitute a seizure)."

"Because a seizure generally does not occur "when an officer merely walks up to and speaks with a driver sitting in an already-stopped vehicle," ////, 873 N.W.2d at 152, and because the investigating officer did not block appellant's exit or otherwise exert force or authority against him, Cripps, 533 N.W.2d at 391, we conclude that the officer's conduct did not constitute a seizure."

The problem with the Court of Appeals' decision is that it ignores its own standard regarding what constitutes a seizure, to wit: "A seizure occurs when "a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave."  So who in their right mind would feel that they are free to leave when a police officer, in a marked squad, parks behind you and then approaches with his flashlight on? Answer: No one. The Court of Appeals got this one wrong.

MORAL OF THE STORY:  If a police officer parks behind your vehicle but does not turn on his emergency lights, leave immediately.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DUI Lawyer, 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. Cunningham (Decided July 28, 2014, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished), which stands for the proposition that you are not "seized" under the Fourth Amendment if the police are doing a "welfare check".  The case is absurd.

In Cunningham, the police came upon the Defendant's apparently unoccupied vehicle as it was parked with its engine running and lights on.  The vehicle was located in a private parking lot and the officers drove up behind Cunningham's vehicle without activating their lights or siren.  The officers approached the car from either side and shone their flashlights into it, but they could not see inside because of heavy tinting on the vehicle's windows.  The officers then shone their lights into the vehicle's windshield and saw Cunningham and his passenger who appeared to be passed out.  After awaking Cunningham, the officers determined he was under the influence and placed him under arrest for third-degree dwi.

On appeal, the Defendant argued he was "seized" when the officers drove up behind his vehicle.  Cunningham claimed that since the police did not have any suspicion of criminal activity at the time of this seizure, all of the evidence concerning his intoxication and arrest was illegally obtained and must be suppressed.

The Court of Appeals disagreed noting, "A seizure occurs if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions or free to terminate the encounter"...."Not all contacts between police and an individual constitute a seizure. A person sitting in a parked car is not seized when an officer merely walks up to the person and asks questions.  But when police partially block a vehicle with a squad car, activate emergency lights, pound on the vehicle's window, and open the driver's door, that conduct amounts to a seizure".

So one would think from the above language of the Court's opinion that Mr. Cunningham was going to win.  After all, the police stopped their vehicle behind his and flashed their lights throughout his car.  

But the Court of Appeals goes on to rule that, "When an officer activated a squad car's emergency lights and pulls up behind a vehicle that is parked on a highway shoulder, that officer would not have communicated to a reasonable person that the officer was attempting to seize the person.  A reasonable person would have assumed that the officer was not doing anything other than checking to see what was going on and to offer help if needed. (Citing State v. Hanson, Minn.Sup. Court 1993) The same sort of welfare check was initiated by the officers here when they parked behind the vehicle, approached to look inside and awakened the sleeping or unconscious occupants."

The Court of Appeals in this case fails to appreciate the difference between Mr. Cunningham and State v. Hanson.  In Hanson, the defendant was stuck by the side of a busy highway in a broken down car.  Here the Defendant was lawfully parked in a private parking lot.  People park in private spaces all the time and there is no need to check on their "welfare".  And even if the police were there to check on the welfare of an "apparently unoccupied vehicle", the police could have done so without first initiating a seizure.

Moral Of The Story: If You Are Going To Get Drunk, Sleep It Off Outside Your Car.

F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney, Minnesota DUI Lawyer, Minneapolis DWI Attorney, Minneapolis DUI Lawyer

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

This week's featured Minnesota DWI case is State v. Casey, _ N.W.2d _ (8/11/2009 Unpublished). It is an unpublished decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals and is noteworthy only because it gives a fairly good recitation of what constitutes a "seizure" of the person for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

In Casey, the defendant had left his vehicle and was walking when he encountered the police. The police began talking to the defendant and he admitted that he had consumed too much to drink. The police subsequently gave the defendant some field sobriety tests and placed him under arrest for DWI.

At trial, the defendant moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the evidence was obtained as the result of an illegal seizure of his person.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction noting:

"The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit unreasonable search and seizure by the government. U.S. Const. Amend IV, Minn. Const. Art. 1 § 10. Not all contact between citizens and police officers constitutes a seizure. In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2D 779, 781 (MINN. 1993). A seizure occurs 'when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.' Id. (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n.16 (1968). A 'person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.' United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554; 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980).

Circumstances that might indicate a seizure occurred include: (1) the threatening presence of several officers; (2) an officer's display of a weapon; (3) the officer physically touching the citizen; or (4) the officer's use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled. State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999).

It is not usually a seizure for an officer to walk up to a person or an already stopped vehicle in a public place. Cobb v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 410 N.W.2d 902, 903 (Minn.App. 1987); See also, State v. Colosimo, 669 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. 2003) (holding that initial interaction where officer was merely conversing with appellant did not amount to a stop or seizure); Norman v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 409 N.W.2d 544, 545 (Minn.App. 1987) (holding that officer did not seize appellant by walking up to him while he was standing outside his vehicle). So long as a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter and law enforcement does not induce cooperation by coercive means, a seizure does does not occur when an officer asks for identification or poses questions of a person in public. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201; 122 S.Ct. 2105, 2110 (2002). In contrast, "it is likely to be a seizure if a person is ordered out of a vehicle, or the police engage in some other action or show of authority which one would not expect between two private citizens." State v. Day, 461 N.W.2d 404, 407 (Minn.App. 1990)." Casey, at p.4-5 (slip opinion).


F.T. Sessoms, Minnesota DWI Attorney