County District Court File No. 10-CV-17-1077
Richard L. Swanson, Chaska, Minnesota (for appellant)
Ellison, Attorney General, William J. Young, Assistant
Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge;
Bjorkman, Judge; and Florey, Judge.
is no constitutional or statutory requirement for police
officers to inform vehicle drivers that they may refuse to
perform field sobriety tests.
challenges the denial of his petition for the reinstatement
of his driving privileges. Because appellant has not shown
that his constitutional rights were violated by the
deputy's failure to inform him that he could refuse to
perform the field sobriety tests, and because the deputy did
not err in expanding his traffic stop of appellant into a
driving under the influence investigation or in arresting
appellant for driving under the influence, we affirm.
a.m. on a Saturday in November 2017, a deputy stopped a truck
that he had observed drive outside the traffic lane and fail
to signal 100 feet before turning. He also observed an
equipment violation. The deputy approached the truck and
identified the driver as appellant Leland Otto. The deputy
saw that appellant's eyes were bloodshot and watery,
heard that appellant's speech was slightly slurred, and
smelled alcohol. When asked to produce his license, appellant
attempted unsuccessfully to remove it from his wallet; he
then gave the wallet to the deputy, who removed the license
without difficulty. Appellant admitted to the deputy that he
had drunk two or three beers.
deputy suspected that appellant was under the influence of
alcohol, told appellant that he wanted to be sure appellant
was "okay to continue driving" and asked appellant
to get out of the truck to perform some field sobriety tests.
Appellant told the deputy that, because of back surgery, he
did not want to perform tests that involved movement, so the
deputy administered three tests that did not involve
first was the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test. Appellant
did not comply with the deputy's instruction to follow
the tip of the deputy's finger with his eyes; the deputy
noted this and terminated the test. The second test was
counting backwards from 67 to 54; appellant performed the
test, then voluntarily repeated it but stopped at 55, not 54.
The third test involved finger dexterity; appellant focused
only on his left hand and stopped the test before completing
on the results of the tests, the deputy gave appellant a
preliminary breath test (PBT). While waiting for the result,
appellant told the deputy, "I'm out of here, I'm
going home." The PBT sample appellant provided revealed
an alcohol concentration of 0.096, and the deputy arrested
him for driving under the influence (DUI). Appellant was
given a breath test that produced a result of 0.09; as a
result, his license was revoked.
filed a petition to reinstate his driving privileges. Based
on the deputy's testimony at the hearing on that
petition, the district court made findings and ...