Schafer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, C0-84-38
| Decision Date | 08 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-84-38,C0-84-38 |
| Citation | 348 N.W.2d 365 |
| Parties | Raymond Mark SCHAFER, petitioner, Respondent, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Minn.Stat. Secs. 169.121, subd. 1 and 169.123, subd. 2 (1982) apply to persons who drive, operate, or exercise physical control of motor vehicles on private property while under the influence of alcohol.
2. The trial court's failure to make findings of fact on the issue of probable cause was error.
Reversed in part and remanded for findings of fact.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Linda Close, Joel Watne, Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, for appellant.
Harvey Jones, Hertogs, Fluegel, Sieben, Polk, Jones & Laverdiere, Hastings, for respondent.
Heard, considered and decided by LANSING, P.J., and FOLEY and LESLIE, JJ., with oral argument waived.
The Commissioner of Public Safety appeals from an order rescinding the revocation of the driving privileges of respondent-driver pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 (1982).
We reverse in part and remand for findings of fact.
Shortly before midnight on August 24, 1983, the Inver Grove Heights Police Department was called to investigate a complaint of a pickup truck driving on the grass and damaging the sod at the Prairie Estates Townhouses.
Sgt. Stahl arrived on the scene, approached a group of 10 people standing in the townhouse yard, and asked if anyone had seen what happened. Two of the group said they saw Schafer driving the pickup and identified him by name. Shortly thereafter Officer Salmey of the department arrived on the scene.
As the officers stood in the yard they noticed two men walking from one of the townhouses toward the truck. One person in the group identified one of the men, Schafer, as the driver of the truck. When the officers started walking toward the men they turned and ran back to the townhouse. The officers followed the two men and found them sitting on the townhouse steps. Officer Salmey asked Schafer for identification. Schafer had no identification, but he told the officer his name and birthdate. The other man identified himself as Merrill.
The officers asked the two men to return to the area near the pickup. As they approached the pickup, Officer Salmey noticed that Schafer swayed as he walked. He had also observed that Schafer's eyes were bloodshot, that he smelled of alcohol, and that his pupils reacted poorly to light. When they reached the truck, Schafer closed the partly open hood of the pickup and kicked shut its open door.
Officer Salmey then placed Schafer in the squad car. After Officer Salmey ran a check on the pickup and found that it was not registered to Schafer, he gave Schafer the implied consent advisory. When they reached the police station Schafer made a telephone call. He then refused to take the test, stating that he had not been driving.
When they were at the accident site, and apparently when Schafer was out of earshot, Sgt. Stahl told Merrill that Schafer said Merrill had been driving. Sgt. Stahl testified that Merrill denied that he was driving and claimed Schafer had been driving. It is not clear from the record whether Merrill made that statement before the advisory was given to Schafer or whether Officer Salmey knew of the statement before he gave the advisory.
1. Does the implied consent statute apply to conduct on private property?
2. Should this Court reinstate the revocation of the respondent's driver's license or remand for findings of fact on the issue of probable cause?
This case presents several unusual questions to the Court. In part, it is unusual because of the way it evolved procedurally. Schafer's petition requested the trial court to review whether there was probable cause to give the implied consent advisory. The trial court heard the evidence and issued an order rescinding the revocation. It attached to the order a memorandum explaining its private property theory. The memorandum, however, was not incorporated in the order, and the trial court failed to make any Findings of Fact. On appeal respondent concedes that the private property theory espoused by the trial court is untenable, but argues that the case should be remanded on the probable cause issue. We agree, but consider it important to address the issue of whether or not the implied consent statute applies to conduct on private property. We do this notwithstanding the failure of the trial court to incorporate its memorandum to its order. Because no grounds are stated, the order is open for interpretation and explanation through use of the unincorporated memorandum. Merriman v. Sandeen, 267 N.W.2d 714, 716 (Minn.1978).
The implied consent statute by its terms applies to the operation of motor vehicles "within this state." Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 subd. 2 (1982). The trial court interpreted a 1967 amendment to Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121 (1982) as limiting the application of Sec. 169.123. That amendment provides in part:
The provisions of this subdivision apply, but are not limited in application, to any person who drives, operates, or who is in actual physical control of any vehicle in the manner prohibited by this subdivision upon the ice of any lake, stream, or river, including but not limited to the ice of any boundary water.
Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121 subd. 1. The trial court apparently reasoned that if the legislature went to the trouble of specifying application to lakes and streams it would have gone to the trouble of specifying application to private property if it had so intended. This reasoning ignores State v. Carroll, 225 Minn. 384, 386, 31 N.W.2d 44, 45 (1948) which held that this state's DWI laws apply to private property. It also ignores the well established policy of construing DWI laws in the public's favor. Holtz v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 340 N.W.2d 363, 365 (Minn.App.1983). Moreover, Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.02 subd. 1(2) provides that sections 169.09 to 169.13 "shall apply upon highways and elsewhere throughout the state" suggesting a broad application be given the provisions of chapter 169. Drunken driving on private or public property, whether it be a lawn, a parking lot, lakes, streams or rivers, presents an obvious hazard to public safety. The legislative history of the implied consent and DWI laws clearly indicates a legislative intent to apply both to private property.
The scope of implied consent hearings is limited to those issues enumerated in Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.123 subd. 6. One issue that may be raised at an implied consent hearing is whether the police had probable cause to believe the petitioner was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Another is whether an accident occurred causing damage to property. Minn.Stat....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boucher
...Huey v. State, 503 N.E.2d 623, 626 (Ind.App.1987); State v. Carter, 424 N.E.2d 158, 160 (Ind.App.1981); Schafer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 348 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Minn.App.1984); State v. Frank, supra, 2 Ohio App.3d 393, 442 N.E.2d 469; 14 H.R.Proc., Pt. 5, 1971 Sess., pp. 2363-66; 1 D.......
-
State v. Mattson
...or privately owned...." On the other hand, Minnesota's drunken driving law applies to all private property. Schafer v. Comm'r of Public Safety, 348 N.W.2d 365, 367 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). Another substantive difference is that Minnesota has chosen to make it a crime to have a BAC of .10% or mor......
-
Wieneke v. Home Mut. Ins. Co.
..."[t]he jurisdiction of an appellate court is limited to questions actually decided by a trial court." Schafer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 348 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), derived in part from Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 68 n. 2 (Minn.1979) ("The trial cou......
-
Friberg v. Fagen
...issue on appeal because our jurisdiction "is limited to questions actually decided by a trial court." Schafer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 348 N.W.2d 365, 368 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). See Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority House, 276 N.W.2d 63, 68 n. 2 (Minn. 1979) ("It is a well-settled principl......