State v. Platt

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Brian Allen Platt, Appellant.

A20-0285

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

March 8, 2021

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

Affirmed

Bratvold, Judge

Beltrami County District Court

File No. 04-CR-17-4085

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

David L. Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Hannah M. Hanlon, Assistant County Attorney, Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Reilly, Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

BRATVOLD, Judge

In this direct appeal from a final judgment of conviction for driving while impaired (DWI)-refusal to submit to testing, appellant argues that he is entitled to reversal for three reasons: (1) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress, (2) the state violated his due-process rights, and (3) the record evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Because caselaw and the record support the district court's determination that appellant's conduct frustrated the testing process, the officer informed appellant of adverse consequences of test refusal, and the record evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction of test refusal, we affirm.

FACTS

The following summarizes the district court's factual findings on the motion to suppress as well as the officer's testimony at the contested omnibus hearing.

On December 22, 2017, at about 10:45 p.m., a police officer in Bemidji conducted a stop of a minivan with an inoperable brake light. When speaking with the driver, appellant Brian Allen Platt, the officer observed that Platt was talking fast and had dilated pupils, which the officer believed were signs of impairment. The officer asked Platt to do field sobriety testing. During testing, the officer observed additional signs that Platt may have been under the influence of a controlled substance, specifically, that he lost his balance, skipped numbers when counting, and had eye tremors.

The officer arrested Platt and drove him to an emergency room. Platt was uncooperative. Platt swore, insulted the officer, yelled, and banged his head on the inside of the squad car. The officer obtained a search warrant to collect a blood or urine sample. The officer testified that Platt "advised me numerous times very clearly that he was not going to give a blood sample." The officer then transported Platt to the county jail.

The district court received an audio recording detailing the discussion between Platt and the officer at the jail. The officer gave Platt a copy of the search warrant and tried to explain it to him. The district court found that Platt tried to slap the search warrant off the table and "continuously yelled over [the officer] to drown out the directions." The officer testified that he had "a very hard time even getting a sentence out" over Platt's yelling, and that he had to repeat himself a number of times while trying to tell Platt about the search warrant. Just after midnight, Platt told the officer that he would not provide a blood sample, but also stated, "I'll give a piss test mother--ker, get the f--k outta here." Platt said that he could not give a urine sample at that time.

According to the audio recording, the officer informed Platt, "[i]f you're gonna (inaudible) act like this then you're gonna be considered a test refusal." Platt replied, "No you're not gonna give me a test refusal, I ain't refused sh-t yet, I need to drink some water first f--kface." Platt then was placed in a holding cell where he was given water and fell asleep. The officer woke Platt "four times total" over forty minutes to ask if he was willing to provide a urine sample. During the first three times, according to the officer, Platt yelled at the officer "to get out of his cell," yelled "vulgarities" and swore at the officer, and told the officer "to leave."

After the officer's fourth attempt to wake Platt and ask about the urine sample, Platt took the specimen bottle and turned his back to the officer. The officer "leaned back" so he could observe and verify the validity of the sample. Platt "became irate," called the officer "every name under the sun," and threatened the officer. Platt then "handed the bottle back to [the officer] refusing to give a urine sample." The officer testified that he againtried to explain that a sample was required and that refusal was a crime, but that he was unable to do so over Platt's yelling. The officer also testified that based on his training and experience, he did not feel it was safe to remain in Platt's jail cell. The officer told Platt that he considered Platt's conduct to be a test refusal.

The state charged Platt with third-degree DWI--refusal to submit to testing, Minn. Stat. § 169A.26, subd. 1(b) (2016). Platt moved to suppress evidence of Platt's refusal, arguing the officer failed to inform Platt that refusal to submit to testing is a crime. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion and the case went to trial. The officer testified similarly to his testimony at the omnibus hearing. Platt testified that he started to provide a urine sample, but was interrupted by the officer. A jury found Platt guilty. The district court sentenced Platt to one year in the county jail, with credit for 243 days.

This appeal follows.

DECISION

I. The district court did not err by denying Platt's motion to suppress.

Platt argues the district court erred by failing to suppress evidence of his test refusal because the officer did not advise him that refusal to submit to testing was a crime. The state contends that the district court correctly denied the motion based on its determination that Platt frustrated the testing process.

When reviewing a district court's pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, appellate courts review the district court's factual findings for clear error and the district court's legal determinations de novo. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008)(quoting State v. Jordan, 742 N.W.2d 149, 152 (Minn. 2007)). On appeal, Platt does not challenge the district court's factual findings from the omnibus hearing. Rather, Platt challenges the district court's legal determination that Platt's "behavior completely frustrated the implied consent procedure" and suppression was not required.

When served with a search warrant under Minn. Stat. §§ 626.04 to 626.18 that directs a driver to provide a sample for a blood or urine test, "the person must be informed that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime." Minn. Stat. § 171.177, subd. 1 (Supp. 2017). This test advisory is part of the implied-consent process and is often called "the implied-consent advisory." See, e.g., State v. Mike, 919 N.W.2d 103, 107 (Minn. App. 2018), review denied (Minn. Aug. 20, 2019). Compliance with the test advisory is required in a criminal DWI prosecution. Id. at 110. The purpose of the advisory is "to inform a driver of the serious consequences of refusal in an effort to compel the driver to take the test." Id. at 113. Here, it is undisputed that the officer did not provide the test advisory to Platt.

We have recognized that "the implied-consent law imposes on a driver a requirement to act in a manner so as not to frustrate the testing process." Busch v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 614 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Minn. App. 2000). When a driver's conduct prevents an officer from completing the implied-consent process, the driver is deemed to have waived his or her rights under that process. See id. (holding that a driver who frustrated the implied-consent process by failure to respond had retracted his request for an attorney).

In State v. Collins, we considered the driver's behavior when deciding whether the state violated a driver's limited right to counsel by failing to read the implied-consentadvisory, which includes an instruction about the right to counsel. 655 N.W.2d 652, 656 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar. 26, 2003). There, a police officer tried to read the advisory, but was "unable to do so because [the driver] began screaming, swearing, making accusations of rape, and insisting that she would not listen." Id. at 658. The driver appealed her refusal-to-test conviction, arguing that her limited right to counsel had been violated. Id. at 654. We affirmed the driver's conviction after determining that, even though the implied-consent advisory was not read, the driver had "completely frustrated the implied consent procedure," which amounted to refusal to test. Id. at 658. Stated slightly differently, we concluded that the driver's conduct "frustrated the implied-consent procedure and amounted to a retraction of her request to contact an attorney." Id.

While Platt is not claiming that his limited right to counsel was violated, the reasoning from Collins is instructive. Like the driver's conduct in Collins, Platt's hostile behavior—yelling, swearing, interrupting, and threatening the officer—"completely frustrated" the testing process, and the officer's attempts to explain the search warrant and consequences of test refusal. The district court found that Platt was "belligerent and uncooperative to an extreme degree [so that] [t]he implied-consent advisory could not be given."

This determination finds ample support in the officer's testimony. The officer testified that he was unable to communicate with Platt because Platt yelled, talked over him, cut him off, swore, and threatened him. The officer testified that he was unable to inform Platt that refusal to take the test is a crime. Under Collins, Platt frustrated the testing process and forfeited his right to be advised of the consequences of refusal.

Still, Platt contends that Collins is "readily distinguishable" for two reasons. First, Platt argues that he never refused to listen, as did the driver in Collins. We disagr...