State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse
2016 Minn. LEXIS 274
| Minn. | 2016Background
- Around 2:00 a.m. on October 20, 2012, Officer observed Tyler Morse drive from downtown (near closing time for bars); Morse made a wide right turn onto Okabena Street and later a slight weave within his lane on First Avenue.
- Officer followed and stopped Morse; officer smelled alcohol, observed watery eyes, and administered field sobriety tests (HGN: all six clues observed).
- Morse was arrested and later gave a breath sample of .19; charged with two counts of second-degree DWI (one count later dismissed).
- At the omnibus hearing the district court reviewed squad-car video and found the video less compelling than the officer’s testimony but still concluded the totality of circumstances supported reasonable, articulable suspicion and denied the motion to dismiss.
- A divided Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed sua sponte, holding the right‑turn statute ambiguous and narrowly construing it, finding no traffic violation to supplement the single weave and thus no lawful stop; the State petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morse) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals properly raised and decided the constitutionality of Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd. 1(a) sua sponte | Court of appeals should not decide an unraised constitutional issue | Court of appeals’ constitutional analysis was correct | Court: Court of appeals erred to raise/decide the constitutional vagueness issue sua sponte; case remanded to address preserved issues |
| Whether officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Morse’s vehicle | Totality (wide right turn, slight weave, time close to 2 a.m., downtown/bar area, officer training) justified stop | Single wide turn or single slight weave alone insufficient; statute vague leading to compounded subjectivity | Court: Under totality of circumstances (all listed factors) the stop was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion; reversal of court of appeals and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988) (reviewing court generally confines review to issues presented to trial court)
- Thayer v. Am. Fin. Advisers, 322 N.W.2d 599 (Minn. 1982) (same principle on issue preservation)
- Diede v. State, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) (reasonable-suspicion standard and requirement for specific, articulable facts)
- Cripps v. State, 533 N.W.2d 388 (Minn. 1995) (articulable facts requirement for suspicion)
- Britton v. State, 604 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 2000) (de novo review of reasonable-suspicion determinations)
- Johnson v. State, 444 N.W.2d 824 (Minn. 1989) (police may draw inferences based on training and experience)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality of circumstances and reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- Ellanson v. State, 198 N.W.2d 136 (Minn. 1972) (stop justified for unusual driving, including weaving within lane)
- Gauster v. State, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. 2008) (district court findings not set aside unless clearly erroneous)
- Timberlake v. State, 744 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 2008) (reasonable-suspicion standard is not high)