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

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 16, 2018

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

          Court of Appeals Office of Appellate Courts

          Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

          William A. Lemons, Scott A. Hersey, Special Assistant Mower County Attorneys, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Kristen Nelsen, Mower County Attorney, for respondent.

          Brandon V. Lawhead, Lawhead Law Offices, Austin, Minnesota, for appellant.

          Heather Robertson, Assistant Minneapolis City Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minneapolis City Attorney's Office.

          Daniel J. Koewler, Ramsay Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

          William Ward, Minnesota State Public Defender, Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Board of Public Defense.

         SYLLABUS

         On a request to consent to urine testing, a driver's limited constitutional right to counsel recognized in Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991), is not triggered unless the statutory implied-consent advisory is read.

          OPINION

          LILLEHAUG, Justice.

         Appellant Scott Ross Hunn was stopped and arrested for driving while impaired (DWI). At the jail, the sheriff's deputy, without reading the implied-consent advisory, asked him if he would consent to urine testing. Hunn provided a urine sample, which tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Hunn was charged with second-degree DWI for violating Minnesota Statutes § 169A.20. subd. 1(7) (2016). On Hunn's motion, the district court suppressed the urine test results because the deputy failed to read the implied-consent advisory that would have advised Hunn of his right to counsel. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that, because the advisory was not read, there was no violation of the limited right to counsel that we recognized in Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991). State v. Hunn, 899 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Minn.App. 2017). Because Friedman applies only to implied-consent cases, we affirm the court of appeals.

         FACTS

         On February 21, 2016, appellant Scott Ross Hunn was pulled over by a Mower County sheriff's deputy for rolling through a stop sign. Hunn told the deputy that he had consumed one beer. The deputy observed that Hunn "spoke in a rapid fashion, struggled to stay on topic in conversation, had dilated pupils and seemed very nervous." These observations led the deputy to suspect that Hunn was under the influence of a controlled substance, so he asked Hunn to perform field sobriety tests. Hunn successfully performed the walk-and-turn test, but failed the horizontal-gaze-nystagmus and one-leg-stand tests. His preliminary breath test was under the legal limit for alcohol. Following these tests, Hunn was placed under arrest for DWI.

         Hunn was taken to the Mower County Jail. At the jail, without reading the implied-consent advisory, the deputy asked Hunn, "Will you take a urine test?" Hunn answered, "Why not?" and the deputy responded, "So yes." The deputy never told Hunn that he had the right to speak with an attorney, nor did Hunn ask to contact one. No warrant was obtained for the urine ...


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.