Motion for Reconsideration or Rehearing in STEVEN CARL RUFF vs Commissioner of Public Safety| Trellis.Law

On November 02, 2015 a Order was filed involving a dispute between Ruff, Steven Carl, and Commissioner Of Public Safety, for Implied Consent in the District Court of Hennepin County.

Preview
27-CV-15-18777
27'CV'15'18777
Filed in
in Fourth
Fourth Judicial District Court
Courj
7/28/2016 4:07:01
4:07:01 PM
Hennepin County,
County, MN

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICML DISTRICT

Steven Carl Ruff, Court File No. 27-CV—15-18777

Petitioner, ORDER SUSTAIN ING DRIVER’S
LICENSE REVOCATION

Commissioner of Public Safety,

Respondent.

The above-entitled matter came on before the Honorable Daniel C. Moreno, Judge of
District Court, on June 14, 2016, pursuant to Petitioner’s Implied Consent Petition. Petitioner was

represented by Nicholas Leverson, Esq., and Respondent was represented by Lindsay Lavoie,

Assistant Attorney General.

On July 8, 2016, Petitioner ﬁled a memorandum of law in support of rescinding his driver’s
license revocation. On July 15, 2016, Respondent ﬁled a memorandum in support of sustaining
the revocation.

Based upon all the ﬁles, records, and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following

ORDER

1. Petitioner’s driver’s license revocation is SUSTAINED; and

2. The attached memorandum of law is incorporated herein by reference.

Datedz';
Sgty a? 2.01“ 3%
BY THE COURT:

Daniel C Moreno
Judge of District Court
27-CV-15-18777
27'CV'15'18777
Filed in
in Fourth
Fourth Judicial District Court
7/28/2016 4:07:01 PM
35342337331,
Hennepin m
County, MN

MEMORANDUM

Steven Carl Ruff, Petitioner herein, has ﬁled a motion to rescind the revocation of his
driver’s license, which was revoked on account of his arrest; for driving while impaired. Petitioner

argues that the implied consent advisory violated his ﬁght to substantive due process. Because the

advisory did not violate Petitioner’s due process rights, Petitioner’s petition is denied, and his

license revocation is sustained.

FACTS1

On October 30, 2015 at 12:09 AM, Ofﬁcer Chn'stopher Cazin of the New Hope Police

Department clocked a car driving 40 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per—hour zone. Ofﬁcer Cazin

began following the vehicle and observed it accelerate to between 40 and 44 miles per hour, at

which point he activated his emergency lights and initiated a trafﬁc stop. He subsequently

identiﬁed Petitioner as the driver.

Ofﬁcer Cazin noted an odor of alcohol coming from Petitioner’s car, and observed that

Petitioner had red and glossy eyes. When asked if he had been drinking, Petitioner responded that
he had consumed ﬁve drinks that evening. Petitioner was then asked to perform three ﬁeld sobriety

tests—the horizontal gaze nystagmus, the one leg stand, and the heel—to-toe—and Petitioner

displayed signs of intoxication in all three. Petitioner subsequently refused to submit to a PET, and

he was placed under arrest for suspicion of driving while impaired. He was then transported to the
New Hope police department.

At 12:36 AM, Ofﬁcer Cozin began reading Petitioner the implied consent advisory.

Petitioner stated that he understood the advisory, 'and that he would like to consult with an attorney.

After speaking with an attorney, Petitioner informed Ofﬁcer Cozin that he would take a chemical

1
The facts are drawn from Ofﬁcer Cazin’s police report.

2
27-CV-15-18777
27'CV'15'18777
Filed in
in Fourth
Fourth Judicial District Court
7/28/2016 4:07:01
4:07:01 PM
Hennepin County,
County, MN

test. Ofﬁcer Cozin asked Petitioner if he would submit to a breath test, and Petitioner consented.
The test indicated a BAC of .16, and Petitioner’s driver’s license was subsequently revoked.

On November 2, 2015, Petitioner ﬁled an implied consent petition seeking rescission of
the revocation. Petitioner argues that the implied consent advisory violated his substantive due

process rights. On June 14, 2016, the parties stipulated to the admission of Ofﬁcer Cazin’s police
report and implied consent advisory, and agreed to submit the matter without hearing. On July 8,

2016, Petitioner ﬁled a memorandum in support of rescinding his license revocation, and on July

15 , 2016, Respondent ﬁled a memorandum in support of sustaining the revocation.

BECAUSE PETITIONER WAS NOT READ AN INACCURATE INIPLIED CONSENT
ADVISORY, HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE NOT VIOLATED.

Petitioner’s sole argument is that the implied consent advisory violated his right to

substantive due process because it provided misleading and incorrect legal information.
Following arrest for suspicion of driving while impaired, a motorist must be informed that

Minnesota law requires him to submit to a test to determine Whether he was du'ving under the

inﬂuence, and that refusal to submit to the test is a crime. Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2(a)(1),

(2). If a motorist refuses to take a test, the administeﬁng ofﬁcer is required to report the refusal to
the local prosecuting authority for criminal prosecution. Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd. 1.

In Birchﬁeld v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the

constitutionality of test refusal statutes, namely those that provided for criminal penalties for

refusal. ——-U.S.--—, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016). After weighing the privacy interests implicated by breath

tests against the state’s asserted need to obtain BAC readings, the Court concluded that warrantless

BAC breath tests were constitutional as lawful searches incident to arrest.2 Id. at 2184. The holding

2
While the Cour: found that a wanant was required to perform a blood test, that issue is not
presented by this case, as Petitioner was requested, and consented, to submit to a breath test.

3
27-CV-15-18777
27'CV'15'18777
Filed in
in Fourth
Fourth Judicial District Court
7/28/2016 4:07:01 PM
Hennepin 3317331, MN
LESS??? County, 5%

necessarily upheld the validity of test refusal criminalization laws With respect to breath tests, as a

person “does not have a fundamental right to reﬁlse a constitutional search.” State v. Bernard, 859

N.W.2d 762, 772 (Minn. 2015).

In light of Birchﬁeld, the Court ﬁnds that Ofﬁcer sin did not mislead Petitioner when
he read Petitioner the implied consent advisory and informed him that his refusal to submit to a

test was a crime. Indeed, this was an accurate recitation of the law, as a motorist will face criminal

charges for his refusal to submit to a breath test.

Petitioner cites State v. Trahan and State v. Thompson to argue that the implied consent

advisory violated his due process rights. Petitioner argues that Trahan and Thompson stand for the

general proposition that warrantless blood and urine tests are per se unconstitutional. There are

two problems with Petitioner’s argument. First, both of those cases were as—applied challenges,

and did not rule on the constitutionality of warrantless blood and urine tests generally. See State v.
Thompson, 873 N.W.2d 873, 876 11.1 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015); State v, Trahan, 870 N.W.2d 396,

404-05 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). Second, even if those cases did stand for the categorical proposition
that Petitioner claims, Birchﬁeld explicitly found that warrantless breath tests, which is the test a":

issue here, are constitutional and that their refusal can be criminalized.

Petitioner also cites to McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety to support his

argument. 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991). McDonnell involved an ofﬁcer who told the appellant

motorist that she could face criminal prosecution if she did not submit to testing, which was

erroneous in the appellant’s case.3 The court found that the appellant’s due process rights were

violated because police “threaten[ed] criminal charges the state was not authorized to impose.” Id.

3
McDonnell involved an earlier iteration of the test refusal law, wherein a refusal was not grounds
for criminal penalties if the motorist had not previously had her license revoked.
4
27-CV-15-18777
27'CV'15'18777
Filed in
in Fourth
Fourth Judicial District Court
7/28/2016 4:07:01
4:07:01 PM
Hennepin County,
County, MN

at 855. The court was particularly concerned with cases where “individual suspects were actively

misled by police regarding their statutory obligation to undergo testing.” Id. at 854. The Court

ﬁnds that McDonnell is inapplicable in this case because, as discussed, Petitioner was not misled

regarding his obligation to submit to a test. While the McDonnell appellant was told erroneously

told that she could face criminal penalties for refusing to submit to a test, Petitioner here was

accurately told that he would face criminal penalties for test reﬁlsal.

Because Petitioner was accurately told that he was required to submit to a chemical test,

and because he submitted to a breath test, which he had no constitutional right to reﬁlse, the Court

ﬁnds that Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated by the implied consent advisory.

CONCLUSION

Because Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated by the implied consent advisory,

his petition must fail and his license revocation is sustained.

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Order: STEVEN CARL RUFF vs Commissioner of Public Safety

Preview

Case Info

Parties