Arden Clarence Hoff v. Commissioner of Public Safety
A16-285
| Minn. Ct. App. | Nov 14, 2016Background
- On May 17, 2015 Hoff drove off the road; a passerby (F.N.) helped him into his car and (heater) drove him home; Hoff later drank brandy at home. Deputy responded hours later, observed slurred speech, administered a preliminary breath test (PBT) of .176 and then arrested Hoff. A blood test at 6:02 p.m. showed .249.
- Hoff stipulated to the blood-test result and waived most challenges, but contested (1) whether the deputy had reasonable suspicion to administer the PBT and (2) whether he proved the post-driving-consumption affirmative defense.
- At the implied-consent hearing Hoff claimed he began drinking brandy after arriving home around 2:00 p.m., consuming roughly 4.75 drinks before the deputy arrived; he introduced a Red Lobster receipt from 1:16 p.m. and expert toxicologist Anne Manly supported Hoff’s post-driving-consumption timeline based on his testimony.
- The district court discredited Hoff, F.N., and the expert, credited neighbor S.H. (who said Hoff arrived home ~3:30 p.m.), and found Hoff failed to prove post-driving consumption raised his BAC above .08 at testing.
- The court denied Hoff’s petition to reinstate privileges; on appeal Hoff argued the district court clearly erred in credibility findings and that the weight of evidence established the affirmative defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hoff proved the post-driving-consumption affirmative defense (that he drank after driving and that such drinking raised his BAC above .08 at time of test) | Hoff: testimony, receipt, and expert support that he began drinking ~2:00 p.m. and consumed enough brandy to explain .249 at 6:02 p.m. | Commissioner: district court found Hoff and his witnesses not credible, credited deputy and neighbor S.H., and concluded Hoff failed to meet his burden by preponderance | Affirmed — district court credibility findings not clearly erroneous; Hoff failed to prove the affirmative defense |
| Whether district court clearly erred in discrediting Hoff's testimony | Hoff: testimony corroborated by F.N. and expert Manly; inconsistencies are minor | Commissioner: district court properly weighed credibility and relied on S.H. and deputy statements | Affirmed — appellate court defers to trial court credibility determinations |
| Whether inconsistencies in S.H.'s testimony required reversal | Hoff: S.H. was unreliable due to timing inconsistencies | Commissioner: inconsistencies are for the factfinder to weigh | Affirmed — inconsistencies do not compel reversal |
| Whether Hoff could challenge probable-cause/impairment on appeal | Hoff: argues circumstantial evidence shows he was not impaired while driving | Commissioner: Hoff waived probable-cause challenge at hearing | Affirmed — waiver prevents raising that issue on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dutcher v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 406 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. App. 1987) (post-driving consumption is an affirmative defense; petitioner bears burden by preponderance)
- Pieschke v. State, 295 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1980) (credibility and witness-weighing are exclusive functions of the factfinder)
- DeCook v. Olmsted Med. Ctr., Inc., 875 N.W.2d 263 (Minn. 2016) (appellate clear-error standard for factual findings)
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (appellate review limited to issues presented to and decided by the trial court)