James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety
A15-2050
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2016Background
- On June 6, 2015, Twin Valley Police Chief Jason Douville observed James Clark accelerate and measured his speed by radar at 45–50 mph in a 30 mph zone; Douville activated his lights and the vehicle stopped in a driveway after about a quarter–half mile.
- Douville escorted Clark to the squad car, asked about alcohol, and Clark said he had two beers; Douville observed bloodshot, watery eyes and smelled alcohol on Clark.
- Clark failed field sobriety testing and a preliminary breath test showed 0.27 BAC; Douville arrested Clark and read the implied-consent advisory at the jail.
- Clark attempted to contact counsel but, after six refusals to submit to a breath test, was issued a notice of revocation under Minnesota’s implied-consent statute.
- Clark petitioned to rescind the revocation, contesting (1) the constitutionality of the implied-consent law and (2) the legality of the traffic stop; the district court denied relief and sustained the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Clark's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of implied-consent refusal penalty | Implied-consent statute forces unconstitutional warrantless search; Clark had a right to refuse a breath test | Statute is constitutional; warrantless breath tests are permissible as search-incident-to-arrest and refusal penalties pass rational-basis review | Statute constitutional; breath tests permissible incident to arrest; refusal penalty upheld |
| Legality of traffic stop (reasonable articulable suspicion) | Stop was unlawful because officer didn’t suspect DUI until after stopping | Officer observed a traffic violation (speeding) providing objective basis to stop; further signs supported DUI investigation | Stop lawful: observed speeding justified stop; observations (odor, red eyes, admission) justified expanding scope to investigate DUI |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 (Minn. 2015) (upholding Minnesota’s test-refusal statute; breath test permissible as search incident to arrest)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that breath tests may be search incident to arrest and refusal penalties are permissible)
- Stevens v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 850 N.W.2d 717 (Minn. App. 2014) (rejected unconstitutional-conditions challenge to implied-consent revocation)
- State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575 (Minn. 1997) (any observed traffic-law violation provides objective basis to stop a vehicle)
- State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818 (Minn. 2004) (investigatory stops require specific and articulable facts supporting suspicion)