State v. Klamar
823 N.W.2d 687
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Trooper observed a vehicle stopped on the shoulder of I-94 at about 1:00 a.m.; there was a strong odor of alcohol and the driver admitted having one drink.
- Trooper spoke to the driver through the passenger door, then ordered the driver to exit for field sobriety testing after further observation of indicators of intoxication.
- Driver was arrested for driving while impaired after failing field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test showed .122 BAC.
- District court dismissed the charge on suppression grounds, finding the exit-order was unsupported by reasonable articulable suspicion.
- State appealed, arguing the initial welfare-check seizure was justified and the exit-order and subsequent testing were permissible under Terry-based analysis.
- The court held the investigative seizure was reasonable at inception and within scope, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the initial seizure justified at inception? | State argues there was reasonable suspicion to expand the welfare check. | Klamar argues no basis to order out and detain. | Yes; initial seizure justified. |
| Was ordering Klamar to exit the vehicle constitutional? | State relies on Mimms/Askerooth to permit removal during a lawful seizure. | Klamar contends removal exceeded permissible intrusion without articulable basis. | Removal did not render the seizure unconstitutional. |
| Were the incremental intrusions (field sobriety and breath testing) independently justified? | Independent basis existed due to odor and observed indicia after outside the vehicle. | Klamar argues testing was not justified by initial seizure alone. | Yes; testing justified by independent observations after exit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412 (Minn.1998) (requires critical impact for suppression orders on prosecutorial posture)
- State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496 (Minn.2008) (critical-impact standard for suppression appeals)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1977) (driver may be ordered out of a lawfully detained vehicle; de minimis intrusion)
- State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90 (Minn.1999) (seizure analysis under Mendenhall framework; credibility deference)
- State v. Day, 461 N.W.2d 404 (Minn.App.1990) (show of authority can constitute seizure when asking to exit a vehicle)