State v. Driscoll
| Decision Date | 02 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-88-46,C9-88-46 |
| Citation | 427 N.W.2d 263 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Eugene A. DRISCOLL, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Arresting officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for DWI based upon officer's observation of numerous indicia of intoxication.
2. Arresting officer need not subjectively believe he has probable cause if he has observed enough to add up to objective probable cause.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Karl Lindquist, City Atty., East Grand Forks, for respondent.
Richard A. Ohlsen, Mack, Moosbrugger, Ohlsen, Dvorak & Carter, Grand Forks, N.D., for appellant.
Heard, considered and decided by RANDALL, P.J., and PARKER and MULALLY, * JJ.
Eugene Driscoll appeals a judgment of conviction of DWI, claiming it was based on evidence, a station-house Intoxilyzer test (.18%), which was the result of an allegedly illegal arrest. The sole issue on appeal is whether the police officer had probable cause to arrest Driscoll.
On March 1, 1987, at a few minutes after 1:00 a.m., appellant Driscoll was driving his pickup truck along the streets of East Grand Forks, Minnesota. It was snowing at the time and there was heavy snow accumulation. Driscoll was following along in the tire tracks in the snow made by other vehicles.
A police officer observed Driscoll's vehicle drift in and out of the path of the tire tracks. The officer also observed that the pickup's engine died when Driscoll stopped at a stop sign. When Driscoll restarted the engine and began to drive again, he did not promptly turn his headlights back on although he did use his turn signal.
The officer then stopped the pickup and detected the odor of alcohol when he approached Driscoll. He also noticed that Driscoll's eyes appeared bloodshot and watery in the available street light. The officer attempted to administer a horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN) but Driscoll did not follow instructions and the test was not properly done. At the officer's direction, Driscoll attempted to recite the alphabet but twice failed to get past the letter "O."
The officer then asked Driscoll to get into the squad car and come to the police station for further testing and Driscoll complied. At the police station, the police officer had Driscoll submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) which Driscoll failed. Driscoll was at this time told he was under arrest. He was subjected to other sobriety tests, including an Intoxilyzer test which indicated a .18% blood alcohol content.
Driscoll argued at a pretrial hearing that he had been effectively under arrest when he was first placed in the police officer's squad car. He claimed this effective arrest was illegal because the police officer did not at that time have probable cause to believe Driscoll had been driving under the influence of alcohol. Because the arrest was illegal, Driscoll argued, the Intoxilyzer test results were the fruits of the illegal arrest and should be suppressed. The trial court ruled that the officer did have probable cause to arrest and thus it did not suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer test. Driscoll was subsequently found guilty by the court of violation of Minn.Stat. Sec. 169.121, subd. 1(a), (d) (1986). This appeal followed.
Did the trial court err in determining the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Driscoll at the scene of the roadside stop?
The parties agree Driscoll was effectively under arrest when he was taken to the police station, even though the arresting officer had not told him he was "under arrest." See Minn.Stat. Sec. 629.30, subd. 1 (1986) (). The parties also agree that the officer had some "reason" to believe appellant was intoxicated, but they dispute whether the officer had the requisite "probable cause" to make an arrest.
Probable cause exists where all the facts and circumstances would warrant a cautious person to believe that the suspect is guilty. * * * The court must examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether probable cause exists.
Vangstad v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 404 N.W.2d 15, 16 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (citations omitted). In considering the totality of circumstances, this court cannot use a "mechanical or numerical equation" to determine if there was probable cause. Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 362 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. for rev....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Koppi, No. A09-136.
...experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested."); see also State v. Driscoll, 427 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Minn.App.1988) ("Whether probable cause exists hinges on the officer's objective observations, not on his subjective belief as to prob......
-
State v. Sam
...sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence of a controlled substance); State v. Driscoll, 427 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Minn. App. 1988) (relying in part on driver's bloodshot and watery eyes when determining that probable cause existed). The district court ......
-
Mesenburg v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety
...omitted). Reasonable suspicion can arise when there is evidence of sufficient indicia of intoxication. See State v. Driscoll , 427 N.W.2d 263, 265-66 (Minn. App. 1988). An odor of alcohol is an indicator of intoxication. State v. Klamar , 823 N.W.2d 687, 696 (Minn. App. 2012). And a traffic......
-
Williams v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety
...appellant violated at least three different traffic laws before he was pulled over by Officer Beck. See, e.g., State v. Driscoll, 427 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Minn. App. 1988) (failing to observe traffic laws is indicia of intoxication). Further, appellant's traffic violations occurred just after 2......