Description: St. Paul, Minnesota criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with driving while impaired, etc.


. On December 13, 2021, at 6:15 p.m., a St. Paul police officer responded to a report that a black sport utility vehicle was blocking the entrance to a store. The report indicated that an individual was seated in the driver's seat and asleep or unconscious. When the officer arrived, he noticed an unoccupied vehicle with a similar description in a parking space in the store's parking lot. The officer "cleared the call," but remained at the scene to observe the vehicle. The vehicle eventually left the parking lot, and the officer followed the vehicle with his dash camera recording. The vehicle traveled south on Hamline Avenue, which has two southbound lanes of traffic separated by a white-dashed centerline. While following the vehicle, the officer observed the driver swerve 6-12 inches over the white-dashed centerline, without signaling, for 20-30 feet before recentering the vehicle in the appropriate lane. Based on his observation, the officer conducted a traffic stop.

During the traffic stop, the officer identified Payton as the driver, noticed signs of impairment, directed Payton to perform field sobriety tests, and arrested Payton for driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer secured a search warrant for a

3

blood or urine test. After the officer read Payton the search warrant and informed Payton that refusing to submit to testing was a crime, Payton refused to submit to testing.

Respondent State of Minnesota charged Payton with three counts: (1) third-degree driving while impaired (refusal to test), pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2(2); (2) fourth-degree driving while impaired (operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance), pursuant to Minn. Stat. 169A.20, subd. 1(2) (2020); and (3) driving after revocation, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 171.24, subd. 2 (2020). Payton moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the traffic stop, arguing the officer lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to perform the traffic stop and the expansion of the stop was unreasonable. The district court denied the motion to suppress.
State v. Payton, A23-1854 (Minn. App. Nov 18, 2024)

Outcome: Defendant was convicted.

Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: