State v. Hester
2011 Minn. LEXIS 189
| Minn. | 2011Background
- Lower Sioux police officer arrested Hester on Dec 16, 2008 under a mutual-aid agreement with Redwood County to provide law enforcement on the Lower Sioux Reservation.
- Meece administered a preliminary breath test showing a .13 BAC; Hester refused further testing after being read the implied-consent advisory.
- Hester was charged with first-degree DWI and first-degree test refusal; the first count was dismissed; he was convicted of test refusal.
- District court held Lower Sioux officers were peace officers under 169A.03(18) and that the liability-insurance filing requirements of 626.91 were substantially complied.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the peace-officer status and substantial compliance; this Court granted review to determine the proper construction of the statute.
- The Supreme Court held that Lower Sioux officers are peace officers under 169A.03(18)(3) only if they satisfy the liability-insurance requirements in 626.91(2), and that the Lower Sioux failed to have the required insurance limits at the time of Hester’s arrest, leading to reversal of the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lower Sioux officers are peace officers under 169A.03(18)(3). | Hester: tribal officers are not within 169A.03(18)(3). | State: tribal officers may fall within 169A.03(18)(3) if they meet 626.91 requirements. | Lower Sioux officers are peace officers if they satisfy 626.91(2) (bond/insurance). |
| Whether the Lower Sioux complied with 626.91(2)(a)(2) insurance requirements at the time of arrest. | Lower Sioux lacked the required $3.6 million annual liability cap. | Substantial compliance suffices. | The Lower Sioux did not comply in substance; insurance limits were below the required $3.6 million annual cap, so not a peace officer at the time. |
| Effect of lack of compliance on Hester’s test-refusal conviction. | If officer not a peace officer, no lawful implied-consent testing. | Even if not, the ruling should align with existing precedent? | Hester’s conviction reversed; because no peace officer requested the test, test-refusal conviction cannot stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O'Connor, 289 Minn. 243 (1971) (limits extent of peace-officer definition beyond explicit listings)
- Quinn, 436 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1989) (substance over form in warrant/statutory compliance for challenges)
- Frink, 296 Minn. 57 (1973) (functional compliance vs. technical noncompliance in warrants)
- Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 (1961) (directory vs mandatory analysis in statutory provisions (criminal context limited))
- State v. Frisby, 260 Minn. 70 (1961) ((cited in opinion))
- City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d 386 (Minn. 1980) (distinction between strict vs substantial compliance (eminent-domain context))