State, Department of Highways v. Styrbicki
Decision Date | 20 June 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 41370,41370 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Respondent, v. Leo J. STYRBICKI, Appellant. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A person is 'lawfully placed under arrest' within the meaning of Minn.St. 169.123, subd. 2, when the arresting officer as of the time of the arrest has made observations giving reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person arrested was driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The fact that the person arrested is subsequently acquitted of the charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage does not make the initial arrest unlawful.
Douglas W. Thomson and John R. Wylde, Jr., St. Paul, for appellant.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., Donn D. Christensen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Kyle, Sol. Gen., John R. Murphy and Charles R. Hall, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the district court sustaining an order of license revocation issued by the commissioner of highways.
Defendant was arrested on June 8, 1967, for an alleged violation of Minn.St. 169.121 ( ). The arresting officer requested him to submit to a chemical test of his blood, but he refused to do so.
On July 17, 1967, the Minnesota Department of Highways informed defendant of its intention to revoke his license to drive pursuant to § 169.123, subd. 4, on the ground that at a time when he was lawfully under arrest for an alleged violation of § 169.121 he refused to permit chemical testing to determine the alcoholic content of his blood. Defendant demanded a hearing pursuant to § 169.123, subd. 5. A hearing was held on August 16, 1967, in the municipal court of the city of Hastings, and that court issued an order on October 6 sustaining the order of revocation of the commissioner of highways. Defendant then filed a petition for a hearing de novo in the District Court of Dakota County pursuant to § 169.123, subd. 7.
On October 25, 1967, a jury found defendant not guilty of violating § 169.121.
On March 5, 1968, the hearing was held in the district court to review the October license-revocation order of the municipal court. At the hearing, defendant admitted that the arresting officer had complied with all statutory conditions precedent to requesting a chemical test. However, defendant moved for dismissal of the district court proceeding on the ground that acquittal of the charge of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage established as a matter of law that there was no probable cause for the arrest. The appeal questions the order of the district court denying this motion.
The issue is whether acquittal by a court or jury on a charge of driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage renders the initial arrest unlawful and thereby bars revocation under § 169.123.
Minn.St. 169.123, subd. 2, provides:
Under this statute, two...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Borman v. Tschida
...of a driver's license under the Implied Consent Law. For recent relevant decisions of other courts, see: State, Dept. of Highways v. Styrbicki, 169 N.W.2d 225 (Minn.1969); and Strelecki v. Coan, 97 N.J.Super. 279, 235 A.2d 37 For recent decisions involving facts somewhat similar to the fact......
-
South Carolina Dept. of Highways and Public Transp. v. Sanford
...804 (1975); Carroll v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Safety, Driver's License Div., 231 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 1975); State Dep't of Highways v. Styrbicki, 284 Minn. 18, 169 N.W.2d 225 (1969); State v. Byerly, 522 S.W.2d 18 (Mo.Ct.App.1975); Smestad v. Ellingson, 191 N.W.2d 799 (N.D.1971); Prucha v. Dep't of......
-
State v. Palmer
...273 Minn. 57, 139 N.W.2d 785. That right does not extend to administrative or civil proceedings. In State, Department of Highways, v. Styrbicki, 284 Minn. 18, 21, 169 N.W.2d 225, 227, we held that an acquittal of the criminal charge of driving while intoxicated 'does not preclude an adminis......
-
State v. Byerly
...test); Smestad v. Ellingson, 191 N.W.2d 799, 802 (N.Dak.1971), (dismissal of criminal charge); State, Department of Highways v. Styrbicki, 284 Minn. 18, 169 N.W.2d 225, 227 (1969); Commonwealth, Dept. of Transportation v. Abraham, 7 Pa.Cmwlth. 535, 300 A.2d 831 (1973); Commonwealth, Dept. o......