Johnson v. State, Dept. of Public Safety, C7-83-754

• Decision Date: 06 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. C7-83-754,C7-83-754
• Citation: 351 N.W.2d 2
• Parties: Willard Gilbert JOHNSON, Respondent, v. STATE of Minnesota, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, petitioner, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 2

351 N.W.2d 2

Willard Gilbert JOHNSON, Respondent, v. STATE of Minnesota, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, petitioner Appellant.

No. C7-83-754.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 6, 1984.

Syllabus by the Court

District court appeal panel erred in reversing order of county court that sustained proposed revocation of driver's license for failure to submit to chemical testing under the implied consent law.

Hubert H. Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., Linda F. Close, David L. Valentini, Joel A. Watne, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, for appellant.

Richard J. Krambeer, Eagan, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

AMDAHL, Chief Justice.

This is a discretionary appeal by the Commissioner of Public Safety from an order of a three-judge panel of the Dakota County District Court reversing an order of the county court that sustained the proposed revocation of the driver's license of Willard Gilbert Johnson for violating the implied consent law, Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 (1982). We reverse the district court's order.

Between 10 and 10:30 p.m. on July 21, 1981, Scott Morton and a friend left the Perkins Restaurant in Apple Valley and walked to Morton's car. Morton testified that as they were entering his car, they saw a collision between Johnson's car and a yellow Lincoln. The collision, which shook the Lincoln, occurred as Johnson was attempting to back his car into a space near Morton's car and next to the Lincoln. After colliding with the Lincoln, Johnson drove away, at a very slow speed, and parked in a different space. Morton testified that Johnson got out, looked at his car, then "staggered" into Perkins, "swaying back and forth" as he did so. Morton testified that they looked at the yellow Lincoln and saw that it had been damaged. He admitted that he did not know if the car had been damaged before the collision. Morton and his friend got the license numbers of both cars, then went into Perkins, told a waitress what they had seen and pointed Johnson out to her. Morton and his friend then walked across the street to a different restaurant to get a soft drink.

The first officer responding to a call from Perkins Restaurant was Officer James Sewald of the Apple Valley Police Department, who arrived around 10:30 p.m. Sewald testified that he inspected the two cars, that the Lincoln was damaged on the right rear end and that the rear bumper of Johnson's car had some scrape marks. He then went into Perkins and talked with Johnson, who said that he did not know anything about the accident but that if he owed anyone anything he would be willing to pay. Sewald testified that Johnson's eyes were glassy and bloodshot, that he smelled of alcohol, and that his gait was unsteady. Johnson accompanied Sewald outside and cooperated fully, producing his driver's license and sitting in the rear of Sewald's squad car when asked to do so.

Officer Brent Moody, also of the Apple Valley Police Department, arrived on the scene when Officer Sewald was walking out of Perkins with Johnson. He noted Johnson's slurred speech and the difficulty he had walking. Morton and his friend returned to the scene and approached Officer Moody, telling him what happened. Moody, who also believed that Johnson was intoxicated, told Morton that he personally could not do anything but that Morton could effect a citizen's arrest of Johnson if he wanted to do so. Morton then effected the arrest.

Subsequently, Officer Sewald read the implied consent advisory to Johnson. Johnson refused to submit to a chemical test. Officer Sewald testified that he invoked the implied consent law on the basis of the citizen's arrest and on the basis of his observations and the statements of Morton. He admitted that he checked only the arrest box on the implied consent advisory form, not the box for collision involving property damage or personal injury, but he stated that he was not relying solely on the arrest as the basis for giving the test.

At the hearing on the petition to rescind the proposed revocation, Johnson's attorney argued that (a) the arrest did not provide a basis for invoking the implied consent law because it was an invalid citizen's arrest, Morton not having had a sufficient basis for concluding that Johnson was under the influence, and (b) the collision did not provide a basis for invoking the implied consent law because Officer Sewald never checked that box on the implied consent advisory and because the Commissioner never proved that the collision caused the damages observed on the Lincoln.

The trial court sustained the revocation. The appeal panel reversed, basically adopting the arguments advanced by Johnson's attorney at the hearing in county court.

Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 (1982) provides that the implied consent law may be...