State v. Harris
Decision Date | 24 November 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 43488,43488 |
Citation | 202 N.W.2d 878,295 Minn. 38 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Daryl Wayne HARRIS, Appellant. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
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, 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 sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the patrolman had reasonable and probable grounds for believing that at the time of the arrest on October 29, 1970, the defendant was 'operating' a motor vehicle within the purview of § 169.123. It is defendant's position that he was not. Defendant has not at any time questioned the lawfulness of the arrest (the second condition of the statute quoted above).
The precise issue has never been confronted in this state under the implied-consent statute although the term 'operate' has been construed under Minn.St. 169.121, which imposes criminal penalties for driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. These two statutes differ with respect to the situations in which they may be invoked. Section 169.121 enumerates three situations for invoking the statute: (1) Driving, (2) operating, or (3) being in actual physical control. On the other hand, the implied-consent statute limits its application to the first two of these situations. Defendant concludes from this that the legislature intended to restrict the implied-consent statute so as not to encompass any conduct within the definition of 'operate' which would be considered 'being in actual control' under the criminal statute, § 169.121.
Defendant relies heavily on the recent decision of this court which construed the meaning of 'operating' under this criminal statute. In State v. Cormican, 292 Minn. 505, 195 N.W.2d 586 (1972), a Minnesota highway patrolman found the defendant lying in his pickup at about midnight in an inebriated condition. The pickup was parked on the shoulder of the road with its motor running and parking lights on. The defendant was lying on the seat with his head toward the right door and his feet on the floor. His body was in no manner in contact with any of the vehicle's controls. When aroused, the defendant appeared drunk and was arrested and convicted for 'operating' a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Koppi
...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 cause depe......
-
Cramer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, No. A03-1953 (MN 1/18/2005)
...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 evidence......
-
State, Dept. of Public Safety v. Juncewski
...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 (1972). 2. The district court majority opinion held that the preliminary screening test was improperly administered. Although Jun......
-
Kirsch v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...101 S.Ct. 690, 694-95, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)), to a custodial detention or arrest, requiring probable cause, State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42, 202 N.W.2d 878, 881 (1972). Pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), in determining whether a seizure is unreas......