Eggersgluss v. Com'r of Public Safety
| Decision Date | 19 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C4-86-46,C4-86-46 |
| Citation | 393 N.W.2d 183 |
| Parties | David Joseph EGGERSGLUSS, Petitioner, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitioner, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Held, arresting officer had probable cause to arrest driver for driving while under the influence of alcohol.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Joel A. Watne, Lawrence Schultz, St. Paul, for appellant.
Robert G. Davis, Jr., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.
We granted the petition of the Commissioner of Public Safety for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing a decision of the trial court which sustained the revocation of the driver's license of David Joseph Eggersgluss under the implied consent law, Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123, subd. 2 (Supp.1985), for driving with a blood alcohol level of .10 or more. The Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to believe that Eggersgluss was under the influence at the time of the accident, which occurred approximately 2 1/2 to 3 hours before the officer learned of the accident and made the observations that he believed gave him probable cause to arrest Eggersgluss. Eggersgluss v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 387 N.W.2d 892 (Minn.App.1986). Reversing the Court of Appeals, we hold that the arresting officer did have probable cause and we therefore reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
At 6:55 a.m. on September 22, 1985, Buffalo Police Officer David Schwarze was told that the department had received a call, apparently anonymous, reporting a car rollover. He immediately drove to the scene, where he found the car on its top. It had obviously jumped the curb after failing to make a turn, then rolled over after going onto an embankment which has a 45? slope. As he was viewing the car, he saw defendant and another man walking towards him from a nearby residential area. Defendant identified himself as the driver of the car and said that the accident had happened about 3 hours earlier. Schwarze asked defendant if he had been drinking, and defendant said no. However, when Schwarze talked alone with the other man, who had been the passenger, the man said that they had been at a reception and had been drinking. This man said that defendant had lost control of the car while returning from the reception. The officer again spoke with defendant and again asked him if he had been drinking, and defendant again said no. However, it was obvious to the officer that defendant was not being truthful, because defendant's breath smelled of alcohol, his face was flushed and his eyes were watery. Concluding that he had probable cause to believe that defendant had been under the influence of alcohol at the time the accident occurred, the officer arrested defendant. Defendant submitted to breath testing, which showed a present blood alcohol level of .11.
The officer had no way of knowing for sure when the accident occurred. It may well have occurred more recently than defendant and his passenger said, but they said that it occurred 3 hours earlier. In any event, the officer clearly had probable cause to believe that defendant had been driving at the time of the accident, and that defendant was presently under the influence of alcohol. The only issue is whether he had probable cause to believe that defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the officer's testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambert v. Schaefer
... ... premises liability, most courts now rely on assumption of risk and public" policy as rationales for the rule. Phillips, 722 S.W.2d at 88 ... \xC2" ... it is not a "license to act with impunity or without regard for the safety officer's well-being." Kreski, 415 N.W.2d 178, 189. There are certain ... ...
-
Schramm v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A05-1736 (Minn. App. 7/11/2006)
...Apr. 26, 1985). This court considers the totality of the circumstances when determining probable cause. Eggersgluss v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 393 N.W.2d 183, 185 (Minn. 1986). Probable Cause to Appellant argues that the officers entered Winchell's residence without probable cause and, there......
-
Cramer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A03-1953 (MN 1/18/2005)
...court must examine the totality of the circumstances when determining whether probable cause existed. Eggersgluss v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 393 N.W.2d 183, 185 (Minn. 1986). Probable cause is assessed from "the point of view of the officer, giving deference to the officer's experience and j......
-
Kirsch v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...over the body. The trooper had probable cause to believe respondent was driving while intoxicated. See Eggersgluss v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 393 N.W.2d 183, 185 (Minn.1986); Rude v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 347 N.W.2d 77, 80 The order rescinding the revocation of respondent's ......