Dashing Through the Snow, Driving Fast in Wintry Conditions Enough to Uphold DWI Traffic Stop

Dashing Through the Snow, Driving Fast in Wintry Conditions Enough to Uphold DWI Traffic Stop

The bells were not jingling for the appellant in the recent Minnesota Court of Appeals case, State v. Baas. The driver was dashing through the snow in downtown Mankato. A Blue Earth County deputy observed the vehicle sloshing through the ice and snow slush from a recent snowfall. Despite not getting a reading on his speed radar, the deputy believed the driver was speeding; so, he initiated a traffic stop. In fact, the deputy believed the driver was driving too fast for the road conditions. A DWI investigation ensued, an arrest was made, and the driver ultimately tested above the legal limit.

The driver challenged the basis for the traffic stop, since the officer never clocked him speeding and merely estimated his speed. The district court rejected the argument and this appeal ensued. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. For a traffic stop to be lawful in Minnesota, the officer needs to have reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. If an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, then there is reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. One favorite catch-all driving statute is failure to drive with due care. That statute requires a person to use due care when driving their vehicle given the driving conditions and hazards. The cop thinks you are dashing through the snow too fast, then you may be failing to drive with due care. Not surprisingly, the traffic stop occurred in this case shortly after the bars closed. If the driver was sloshing through the snow in downtown Mankato at 2:00 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon, would a deputy stop him for failing to drive with due care? I have my guess.

The driver’s defense lawyer argued that it was impossible for the deputy to estimate the speed of the vehicle given the conditions. The court of appeals rejected that argument by highlighting the prosecution does not need to meet the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard for the traffic stop to be upheld. Merely, reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver was not driving with due care was enough to uphold the traffic stop.

In deciding whether to challenge your DWI case, all legal issues should be reviewed thoroughly. The first issue to review is often whether the initial police contact, which is commonly a traffic stop, was valid. Challenging that issue requires filing a motion to suppress the evidence, which is filed in the pre-trial stages of your case. The court will then schedule a motion hearing (also known as an evidentiary hearing, Rasmussen Hearing, Contested Omnibus Hearing, etc.). There, the officer can come testify, other witnesses can testify, or the parties can stipulate to the evidence and present legal arguments either orally or in writing. If successful, and when accompanied by a motion to dismiss, the charges generally result in a dismissal. Other times, if there is a DWI Under the Influence charge outstanding or other traffic infractions, you may want to proceed to trial when the evidence has been suppressed. Otherwise, the prosecution is likely to make a generous plea offer to avoid such a trial. To make sure your constitutional rights are being protected, and for consultation at no charge, contact us by phone or text at: 612-547-3199. You can also reach us by email at: ambroselegal@icloud.com.

Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense lawyer and DWI attorney in Minnesota. Super Lawyers named him Super Lawyer this year and a Rising Star the previous six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. DUI Lawyer Woodbury MN, Criminal Defense Lawyer St. Paul MN, Criminal Appeals Lawyer Minnesota.