State v. Feltus

• Decision Date: 18 July 2022
• Docket Number: A21-0916
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Nancy Jean Feltus, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Nancy Jean Feltus, Appellant.

No. A21-0916

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 18, 2022

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Itasca County District Court File No. 31-CR-19-1218

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Matti R. Adam, Itasca County Attorney, Justin J. Lee, Assistant County Attorney, Grand Rapids, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Kathryn L. LaPlante, Special Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.

OPINION

COCHRAN, Judge

Following a traffic stop and search of her vehicle, appellant was convicted of first-degree sale of a controlled substance and third-degree driving while impaired (DWI). In this direct appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred by denying her motion to

1

suppress evidence because (1) police unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop; (2) statements appellant made regarding her drug use were elicited in violation of her Miranda rights; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest her; and (4) police unlawfully searched and seized her car. We affirm.

FACTS

On April 29, 2019, a Minnesota State Patrol trooper initiated a traffic stop of a car traveling on Highway 169 in Itasca County after observing the car cross over the centerline and then over the fog line numerous times. After the trooper activated her emergency lights, the car continued to travel for approximately a quarter mile without slowing down before pulling over to the side of the highway. The car came to a stop on the shoulder of a highway bridge.

The trooper approached the car and spoke to the driver, whom she later identified as appellant Nancy Jean Feltus. An adult male passenger was also in the car. While speaking with Feltus, the trooper observed that Feltus's eyes were bloodshot, watery, and glossy. The trooper also noticed that Feltus appeared to be nervous and the carotid artery in her neck was "pulsating distinctively." The trooper asked Feltus about her driving conduct, and Feltus responded that she was tired after recently finishing work. The trooper then returned to her squad car to run Feltus's driver's license and wait for Feltus to locate proof of car insurance. The trooper also called for another squad car because she believed the location of the stop was unsafe.

Upon receiving Feltus's proof of insurance, the trooper informed Feltus that, based on her driving conduct and other signs of impairment, she was going to have Feltus exit

2

her car and perform field sobriety testing. Feltus complied, and the trooper directed Feltus to stand by the front bumper of the squad car. The trooper asked Feltus if she had any weapons. Feltus pulled a portable torch out of her pocket and explained that she uses it for beading jewelry. The trooper also asked Feltus if she had any recent brain tumors, concussions, or injuries of any kind. Feltus told the trooper that her knees had been operated on in the past but that it had been a while.

Before beginning the field sobriety tests, the trooper took Feltus's pulse, which she measured as 104 beats per minute. Feltus then performed a series of field sobriety tests. The first test, known as the Romberg test, required Feltus to place her feet together, tilt her head back, close her eyes, and estimate the passage of 30 seconds. Feltus estimated the passage of 30 seconds in approximately 24 seconds, which the trooper believed showed that Feltus's "internal clock [was] faster than the average person's." The trooper also noticed that Feltus "had a distinct sway" during the Romberg test. Next, Feltus performed the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which required her to track the trooper's finger with her eyes. While the trooper did not notice any of the standard indicia of impairment during this test, the trooper saw that Feltus's eyes jerked or bounced around and had a hard time focusing on the trooper's finger. Feltus also told the trooper during this test that she was on the verge of falling asleep. The trooper then administered the walk-and-turn test. Before beginning the test, Feltus lost her balance numerous times. During the test, Feltus did not touch heel-to-toe for every step and took the incorrect number of steps before turning. Finally, Feltus performed the one-leg-stand test, during which she swayed while balancing, used her arms to balance, and put her foot down early. After completing the

3

field sobriety tests, the trooper once again took Feltus's pulse, which she measured to be 112 beats per minute. Based on Feltus's performance on the field sobriety tests and the trooper's measurement of her pulse rate, the trooper believed that Feltus was impaired by a stimulant drug such as methamphetamine.

The trooper then administered a preliminary breath test, the result of which indicated that Feltus did not have any alcohol in her system. While administering the breath test, the trooper noticed that Feltus had a number of "heat bumps," or blisters, on the back of her tongue. The trooper believed the presence of "heat bumps" to be consistent with methamphetamine use. Immediately after the breath test, the trooper asked Feltus several questions about her prior drug use. Feltus admitted that she had smoked methamphetamine in the past but was unaware of when she had last used the drug. The trooper then told Feltus that she was under arrest for DWI.

After placing Feltus in the back of the squad car, the trooper determined that Feltus's car would need to be towed and impounded. She made that decision in part "due to safety concerns as to where [the car] was parked"-specifically, "on top of a hill on a bridge," which made the car "hard to see." She also made the decision because Feltus's passenger did not have a valid driver's license and could not lawfully drive the car. Therefore, another trooper who had arrived during the traffic stop gave the passenger a ride to a nearby town and a tow truck was called. The trooper who stopped Feltus then conducted a "tow inventory" of the car to ensure that any private property in the car was recorded before it was towed. Inside the car, the trooper found a small container in the backseat containing white residue, which later tested positive for methamphetamine. She also found a green

4

bag in the trunk which held (1) a small round tin containing Ziploc baggies of methamphetamine, (2) another pouch containing additional baggies of methamphetamine, and (3) a glass pipe containing methamphetamine residue.

Respondent State of Minnesota charged Feltus with first-degree sale of a controlled substance in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1(1) (2018),^[1] and third-degree DWI in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(7) (2018). During pretrial proceedings, Feltus filed a motion to dismiss the case and suppress evidence. Feltus argued in relevant part that (1) the trooper unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop by asking her to exit her car to perform field sobriety tests; (2) the trooper violated her Miranda rights by questioning her during the stop; (3) the trooper lacked probable cause to arrest her; and (4) the search and subsequent impoundment of her car was unlawful.

The district court held a contested omnibus hearing to address the motion. At the hearing, the district court heard testimony from the trooper who conducted the traffic stop, an expert witness for the defense, and Feltus. The trooper testified about the circumstances of the stop, Feltus's arrest, and the search of her car. The state introduced a video from the trooper's dashboard camera showing the stop. The expert witness, a registered nurse, opined that the trooper did not accurately take Feltus's pulse during the traffic stop. Lastly, Feltus testified that she has had reconstructive surgeries on both of her knees and that her knee problems affected her ability to perform the field sobriety tests. The district court

5

received into evidence copies of two medical records detailing Feltus's knee conditions after her surgeries.

Following the hearing, the district court issued a written order denying Feltus's motion to dismiss and suppress evidence. The parties agreed to a trial on stipulated evidence, thereby preserving the suppression issue for appeal. The district court found Feltus guilty of both first-degree drug sale and third-degree DWI. This appeal follows.

DECISION

When reviewing a district court's pretrial decision on a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews the district court's legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. State v. Brown, 932 N.W.2d 283, 289 (Minn. 2019). "A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it does not have evidentiary support in the record or if it was induced by an erroneous view of the law." State v. Ezeka, 946 N.W.2d 393, 403 (Minn. 2020) (quotation omitted).

Feltus raises four arguments on appeal. She contends that the district court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence because (1) the trooper unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop; (2) the statements she made to the trooper regarding her drug use were elicited in violation of her Miranda rights; (3) the trooper lacked probable cause to arrest her; and (4) the trooper unlawfully searched and impounded her car. We address each of these arguments in turn.

6

I. The district court did not err by concluding that the trooper did not unlawfully expand the scope of the traffic stop.

Feltus first contends that the district court erred by not suppressing the evidence obtained during the traffic stop because the trooper unlawfully expanded the scope of the stop. She identifies three actions by the trooper that she argues constituted unlawful expansions...