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.

State v. Hunn

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

June 19, 2017

State of Minnesota, Appellant,
v.
Scott Ross Hunn, Respondent.

         Mower County District Court File No. 50-CR-16-1130

          Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, Austin, Minnesota; and Scott A. Hersey, Special Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

          Brandon V. Lawhead, Lawhead Law Offices, Austin, Minnesota (for respondent)

          Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.

         SYLLABUS

         Where the implied-consent statute is not invoked, advisement of the limited right to counsel is not a prerequisite to admitting chemical-test results in a criminal prosecution for driving while impaired (DWI) because the suspect does not face immediate license revocation for test refusal.

          OPINION

          REYES, Judge.

         The state appeals the district court's order granting respondent's motion to suppress urine-test results, arguing that the district court erroneously concluded that compliance with Minnesota's implied-consent law, including advisement of a suspect's limited right to counsel before consenting to chemical testing, is a prerequisite to the admissibility of chemical-test results in a criminal DWI prosecution. We reverse and remand.

         FACTS

         On February 21, 2016, at approximately 1:09 a.m., a Mower County Deputy Sheriff (the deputy) pulled over respondent Scott Ross Hunn's vehicle for failing to stop at a stop sign. After identifying respondent, the deputy observed that respondent's eyes were bloodshot, glassy, and had abnormally dilated pupils. The deputy also noted that respondent appeared agitated, spoke abnormally fast, and shared odd information. Through his training and experience in law enforcement, the deputy considered these characteristics to be indicative of possible drug use. The deputy also smelled a slight odor of alcohol, and respondent admitted to having one beer.

         After respondent failed two field sobriety tests, the deputy administered a preliminary breath test, which revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.024. The deputy then placed respondent under arrest for controlled-substance DWI. Next, respondent consented to the deputy's request for permission to search respondent's vehicle. A drinking straw, containing trace amounts of what field-tested positive for methamphetamine, was discovered during the search.

         The deputy then transported respondent to the Mower County Jail and asked him, "Scott will you take a urine test and give me a sample?" Respondent replied, "Why not?" The deputy responded, "So yes." Respondent submitted a urine sample, which was sent to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for laboratory testing. The deputy did not read respondent the implied-consent advisory or advise respondent that he had a limited right to speak to an attorney before testing.[1] On April 8, the deputy received respondent's test results, which indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.04 and the presence of methamphetamine and amphetamine.

         Appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent with second-degree DWI (any amount of schedule I/II drugs), no proof of insurance, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Respondent moved to suppress the evidence and dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds, including the officer's failure to read the implied-consent advisory and the invalidity of respondent's consent to testing. The district court suppressed the urine-test results based on the deputy's failure to read respondent the implied-consent advisory, including his failure to advise respondent of, and vindicate, his limited right to counsel ...


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.