Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

04/09/96 KAREN ANN PRANGE v. STATE MINNESOTA

April 9, 1996

KAREN ANN PRANGE, PETITIONER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, RESPONDENT.



Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hon. Bertrand Poritsky, Judge. District Court File No. C3-95-60032.

Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Randall

RANDALL, Judge

Appellant challenges the district court's decision to sustain the revocation of her driver's license following an implied consent hearing. We affirm.

FACTS

Early one morning in May 1995, Officer Michael Reuss received two radio calls within six minutes of one another from a police dispatcher relaying information about two calls from an Embers restaurant. After the first call, the dispatcher reported a possible disorderly customer problem at Embers. After the second call the dispatcher reported that a possibly drunk driver was leaving the same restaurant.

Immediately following the first call, Officer Reuss went to the restaurant to investigate. A night manager at the restaurant informed Reuss that he had just called the police about a disorderly customer problem. The night manager stated that he did not think that the customers he called about were creating a disturbance, but he felt that three female customers in the restaurant were possibly intoxicated. The manager pointed out the women to Reuss, who looked at them in their booth from his position in the front of the restaurant. Officer Reuss testified that in viewing the three women, they did not appear to be disorderly or causing any problems. Reuss spent a short time in the restaurant and left.

Within six minutes of leaving the restaurant, Reuss received a second radio call from a police dispatcher. The dispatcher informed Reuss that a caller "from the Embers" had reported that a white vehicle with a particular license plate number "was leaving with three females in it that were possibly intoxicated."

From his position around the corner from the Embers restaurant, Reuss noticed a car, matching the description of the automobile identified by the dispatcher, leaving the Embers parking lot. Reuss followed the vehicle in his car for about a distance of one-half mile. As he followed the white car, Reuss claimed he saw the driver commit the following errors: (1) signalling in the middle of a turn, instead of 100 feet in advance; (2) making a "wide turn" at another intersection. Reuss also testified that he observed an object hanging from the rearview mirror of the white car, which would be a technical violation of the law.

Approximately two-and-one-half blocks beyond the intersection where Reuss said he witnessed the wide turn and noticed the object in the car's windshield, he signalled for the car to pull over to the side of the road. After administering various field sobriety tests to the driver of the white car, Reuss arrested appellant for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Reuss returned to the Embers restaurant after making the arrest. He then confirmed that the person who had placed the second call to the police from Embers was the night manager with whom he had spoken after the first call.

Appellant's driver's license was subsequently revoked for one year, because she refused to submit to testing for intoxication. Following appellant's petition for judicial review of the revocation, the district court held an implied consent hearing and sustained the revocation.

DECISION

Appellant argues that Officer Reuss's stop was unconstitutional because he did not have an articulable suspicion to stop, and thus the district court should have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.