Preview
62-CV-15-1623
Filed in Second Judicial District Court
7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM
Ramsey County, MN
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Timothy Kelly Higgins, Court File No.: 62-CV-15-1623
Petitioner,
v. FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Commissioner of Public Safety, AND ORDER
Respondent.
The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable Nicole J. Starr, Judge of District
Court on July 22, 2015, for a contested Implied Consent hearing. Adam Klinnert, Esq.,
represented Petitioner, Timothy Kelly Higgs. Rachel Bell, Assistant Attorney General,
represented Respondent, Commissioner of Public Safety.
Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether he was unreasonably seized at the initial traffic
stop and (2) whether the stop was impermissibly expanded. The matter was taken under
advisement following the hearing.
Based upon all of the evidence presented, this Court makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 9, 2015, while on routine patrol under the supervision of a Field Training
Officer, Ramsey County Deputy James Chinn observed Petitioner, Timothy Higgins, exit the
Vadnais Inn parking lot onto Rice Street in Saint Paul, Minnesota. During the turn onto Rice
Street, Mr. Higgins’ car almost struck Deputy Chinn’s squad car. Deputy Chinn honked his horn
and swerved to avoid a collision.
1
62-CV-15-1623
Filed in Second Judicial District Court
7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM
Ramsey County, MN
Deputy Chinn conducted a traffic stop and informed Mr. Higgins of the reason for the
stop. Mr. Higgins said he did not realize that the deputy had to swerve to avoid a collision. Mr.
Higgins also informed Deputy Chinn that he had consumed five beers at the Vadnais Inn, as he
and his wife had euthanized his cat. During this conversation, Deputy Chinn noticed that Mr.
Higgins had watery eyes (though not bloodshot) and smelled an alcoholic beverage on Mr.
Higgins’ breath. Based on the driving conduct, admission of drinking and watery eyes, Deputy
Chinn asked his Field Training Officer to administer field sobriety tests. Mr. Higgins provided a
PBT sample resulting in a .17 BAC.
Subsequent to the incident on March 9, 2015, Mr. Higgins returned to the scene and
measured the width and length of the traffic lanes near the Vadnais Inn, and estimated that he
had come to within three to four feet of the squad car. Despite the small distance between his car
and the squad car, Mr. Higgins testified that he did not see the squad car swerve.
Mr. Higgins testified that alcohol could affect memory, depending on how much was
consumed; however, he did not believe that his blood alcohol concentration (over twice the legal
limit) affected his ability to recall or perceive what transpired of the evening of March 9, 2015.
The Court finds that given Mr. Higgins’ reported blood alcohol concentration, his memory and
perception were compromised at the time of the incident.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Minnesota and Federal Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.
Minn. Const. art. I, § 10; U.S. Const. amend IV. A limited investigatory stop is constitutionally
permitted only when a police officer has specific and articulable suspicion of a traffic violation.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (requiring specific and articulable facts which, taken together
with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion). If an officer observes
2
62-CV-15-1623
Filed in Second Judicial District Court
7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM
Ramsey County, MN
a traffic violation, no matter how insignificant the traffic violation, that observation forms the
requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop. State v. George, 557
N.W.2d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (holding that an officer’s mistaken interpretation of a statute may
not form the particularized and objective basis for a traffic stop).
Turning in a manner that causes another vehicle to swerve, or creating a situation where
two moving vehicles come within three to four feet of colliding with each other provides
reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred. Minnesota Statutes require that “every
driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then
existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle.” Minn. Stat. § 169.14.
Additionally, Minnesota Statues penalize “any person who operates . . . a vehicle upon any street
or highway carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights of others, or in a manner that
endangers or is likely to endanger any property or any person . . ..” Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subdiv.
2. Deputy Chinn testified that he swerved to avoid collision with Mr. Higgins’ car (which, by
Mr. Higgins’ testimony, was no more than three to four feet away from the squad car) which
supports an investigatory stop.
Deputy Chinn’s expansion of the scope of the traffic stop was justified by Mr. Higgins’
statements that he had been drinking, the smell of alcohol on his breath, his watery eyes, and his
driving conduct. Any expansion of the scope or duration of a traffic stop must be justified by a
reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity. State v. Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415, 419
(Minn. 2003). Minnesota Courts have held that “an odor of alcohol can provide reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to expand the scope of a traffic stop.” State v. Lopez, 631
N.W.2d 810, 814 (Minn. App. 2001). Courts evaluate a traffic stop by examining the totality of
the circumstances. State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013). Here, the expansion of the
3
62-CV-15-1623
Filed in Second Judicial District Court
7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM
Ramsey County, MN
scope of the stop was supported by Mr. Higgins’ admission of drinking, the smell of alcohol and
observation of watery eyes.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to rescind the revocation of his
driving privileges pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.50 – 169A.53 is DENIED.
DATE: July 28, 2015 BY THE COURT:
Nicole J. Starr
Judge of District Court
4
Preview
62-CV-15-1623 Filed in Second Judicial District Court 7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM Ramsey County, MN STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT Timothy Kelly Higgins, Court File No.: 62-CV-15-1623 Petitioner, v. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, Commissioner of Public Safety, AND ORDER Respondent. The above-entitled matter came before the Honorable Nicole J. Starr, Judge of District Court on July 22, 2015, for a contested Implied Consent hearing. Adam Klinnert, Esq., represented Petitioner, Timothy Kelly Higgs. Rachel Bell, Assistant Attorney General, represented Respondent, Commissioner of Public Safety. Defendant raises two issues: (1) whether he was unreasonably seized at the initial traffic stop and (2) whether the stop was impermissibly expanded. The matter was taken under advisement following the hearing. Based upon all of the evidence presented, this Court makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT On March 9, 2015, while on routine patrol under the supervision of a Field Training Officer, Ramsey County Deputy James Chinn observed Petitioner, Timothy Higgins, exit the Vadnais Inn parking lot onto Rice Street in Saint Paul, Minnesota. During the turn onto Rice Street, Mr. Higgins’ car almost struck Deputy Chinn’s squad car. Deputy Chinn honked his horn and swerved to avoid a collision. 1 62-CV-15-1623 Filed in Second Judicial District Court 7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM Ramsey County, MN Deputy Chinn conducted a traffic stop and informed Mr. Higgins of the reason for the stop. Mr. Higgins said he did not realize that the deputy had to swerve to avoid a collision. Mr. Higgins also informed Deputy Chinn that he had consumed five beers at the Vadnais Inn, as he and his wife had euthanized his cat. During this conversation, Deputy Chinn noticed that Mr. Higgins had watery eyes (though not bloodshot) and smelled an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Higgins’ breath. Based on the driving conduct, admission of drinking and watery eyes, Deputy Chinn asked his Field Training Officer to administer field sobriety tests. Mr. Higgins provided a PBT sample resulting in a .17 BAC. Subsequent to the incident on March 9, 2015, Mr. Higgins returned to the scene and measured the width and length of the traffic lanes near the Vadnais Inn, and estimated that he had come to within three to four feet of the squad car. Despite the small distance between his car and the squad car, Mr. Higgins testified that he did not see the squad car swerve. Mr. Higgins testified that alcohol could affect memory, depending on how much was consumed; however, he did not believe that his blood alcohol concentration (over twice the legal limit) affected his ability to recall or perceive what transpired of the evening of March 9, 2015. The Court finds that given Mr. Higgins’ reported blood alcohol concentration, his memory and perception were compromised at the time of the incident. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Minnesota and Federal Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Minn. Const. art. I, § 10; U.S. Const. amend IV. A limited investigatory stop is constitutionally permitted only when a police officer has specific and articulable suspicion of a traffic violation. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (requiring specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion). If an officer observes 2 62-CV-15-1623 Filed in Second Judicial District Court 7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM Ramsey County, MN a traffic violation, no matter how insignificant the traffic violation, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop. State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (holding that an officer’s mistaken interpretation of a statute may not form the particularized and objective basis for a traffic stop). Turning in a manner that causes another vehicle to swerve, or creating a situation where two moving vehicles come within three to four feet of colliding with each other provides reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred. Minnesota Statutes require that “every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle.” Minn. Stat. § 169.14. Additionally, Minnesota Statues penalize “any person who operates . . . a vehicle upon any street or highway carelessly or heedlessly in disregard of the rights of others, or in a manner that endangers or is likely to endanger any property or any person . . ..” Minn. Stat. § 169.13, subdiv. 2. Deputy Chinn testified that he swerved to avoid collision with Mr. Higgins’ car (which, by Mr. Higgins’ testimony, was no more than three to four feet away from the squad car) which supports an investigatory stop. Deputy Chinn’s expansion of the scope of the traffic stop was justified by Mr. Higgins’ statements that he had been drinking, the smell of alcohol on his breath, his watery eyes, and his driving conduct. Any expansion of the scope or duration of a traffic stop must be justified by a reasonable articulable suspicion of other criminal activity. State v. Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415, 419 (Minn. 2003). Minnesota Courts have held that “an odor of alcohol can provide reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to expand the scope of a traffic stop.” State v. Lopez, 631 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Minn. App. 2001). Courts evaluate a traffic stop by examining the totality of the circumstances. State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013). Here, the expansion of the 3 62-CV-15-1623 Filed in Second Judicial District Court 7/29/2015 11:20:00 AM Ramsey County, MN scope of the stop was supported by Mr. Higgins’ admission of drinking, the smell of alcohol and observation of watery eyes. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to rescind the revocation of his driving privileges pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.50 – 169A.53 is DENIED. DATE: July 28, 2015 BY THE COURT: Nicole J. Starr Judge of District Court 4