State v. Harris, 43488

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtHeard before KNUTSON; PER CURIAM
Citation202 N.W.2d 878,295 Minn. 38
PartiesSTATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Daryl Wayne HARRIS, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 43488,43488
Decision Date24 November 1972

Page 878

202 N.W.2d 878
295 Minn. 38
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,
Daryl Wayne HARRIS, Appellant.
No. 43488.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Nov. 24, 1972.

Page 879

Harry N. Ray, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Thomas G. Lockhart, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, PETERSON, and KELLY, JJ.


This appeal is from a judgment by the district court without a jury sustaining an order of the commissioner of highways revoking defendant's driver's license. We affirm.

On October 29, 1970, between 10:30 and 10:50 p.m., Officer James A. Reibel, a highway patrolman, answered a call to proceed to a point on Interstate Highway No. 35E between State Highway No. 36 and Little Canada Road. Upon arrival he observed a vehicle parked at an angle on the shoulder with the left rear portion extending approximately 2 to 3 feet into the right, northbound traffic lane. The motor of the vehicle was running, [295 Minn. 39] with the headlights and taillights on. The patrolman also heard a horn honking which appeared to be coming from the vehicle. The defendant was observed sitting in the driver's seat 'slightly slumped over the steering wheel.' No movement was observed.

Patrolman Reibel approached the vehicle, shined his flashlight in the window, and opened the door, at which time the defendant turned and faced him. Upon the patrolman's request, the defendant stepped out of his vehicle. Neither could recall whether defendant turned off the ignition or manipulated any controls prior to alighting from the vehicle. The patrolman noticed an odor of alcohol about the defendant and that he swayed. Defendant was escorted to the passenger side of the patrol car with the patrolman holding his arm to prevent him from straying into the traffic lane. In the patrol car he was placed under arrest.

Defendant was taken to the Ramsey County Patrol Station at Rice Street and Highway No. I--694, arriving at approximately 11 p.m., and was requested to submit to testing for alcohol. He refused all methods of testing and was taken to Ramsey County Jail.

Defendant testified that he worked at two different jobs during the week and on the evening in question he was proceeding to his second employment. He further testified that he pulled onto the shoulder because he was tired and that he believed he was asleep when the officer confronted him.

Minnesota's implied-consent statute, Minn.St. 169.123, provides that any person who drives or operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways is deemed to have consented to a blood, breath, or urine analysis to determine if he is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. The defendant here testified that he had driven his car to the place where he was arrested. The statute in force at that time was Minn.St.1969, § 169.123, subd. 2, which provided in part:

'* * * The test shall be administered at the direction of a peace officer, when (1) the officer has reasonable and probable [295 Minn. 40] grounds to believe that a person was driving or operating a motor vehicle while said person was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, and (2) the said person has been lawfully placed under arrest for alleged commission of the said described offense in violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 169.121, or an ordinance in conformity therewith. No action shall be taken hereunder against the said person unless the two

Page 880

enumerated conditions existed at the time the officer requested the chemical test specimen.'

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the patrolman had reasonable and probable grounds for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • State v. Koppi, A09–136.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • June 8, 2011
    ...believing that the individual was driving or was operating” or was in physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired. State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42, 202 N.W.2d 878, 881 (1972), quoted in Knapp v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 610 N.W.2d 625, 628 n. 6 (Minn.2000). The existence of probable ......
  • State v. Taylor, A20-0425
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • October 13, 2021 (citing Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(a) (1982)), which we have held was synonymous with "probable cause," State v. Harris, 202 N.W.2d 878, 881 (Minn. 1972). As stated above, reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard for law enforcement to meet, Diede, 795 N.W.2d at 843, and therefore,......
  • Cramer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A03-1953 (MN 1/18/2005), A03-1953.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • January 18, 2005 the act of driving or operating the vehicle to request a test to determine the alcoholic content of his blood." State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42, 202 N.W.2d 878, 880-81 (1972). But a time frame must be established between the drinking and driving either by direct or circumstantial evide......
  • State, Dept. of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 51284.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • July 17, 1981
    ...the necessary control to have violated Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 1(a) (1980). Such a conclusion also finds support in State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 202 N.W.2d 878 2. The district court majority opinion held that the preliminary screening test was improperly administered. Although Juncews......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT