Welfare Check Turns into DWI Arrest — MN Court of Appeals Sides with Police
Earlier this month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s decision to suppress evidence in a DWI case that began as a welfare check. In State v. Muumbo, the court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion to begin a DWI investigation based on objective indicators of impairment, even though bodycam footage suggested the officer was retaliating against the defendant.
On November 4, 2023, what began as a routine welfare check quickly escalated into a DWI investigation and arrest. A Richfield police officer responding to a “suspicious vehicle” in an apartment building parking lot found a person sitting in the driver’s seat of an SUV. The person explained he was homeless and had been using a pole in the lot for electricity. He also stated that officers had recently conducted welfare checks on him. The officer told the person he needed to leave the property or face a trespass complaint.
When the man stepped out of the vehicle, the officer noticed indicators of impairment such as unbuckled pants, a wet spot inside the SUV, red and watery eyes, and the stench of alcohol on his breath. When asked how much he had to drink, he responded, “enough to pass a sobriety test.” Moments later, the officer initiated field sobriety tests, telling him, “you wanted to be difficult with me this entire time, so now we are going to do a field sobriety test.” He failed sobriety tests, and a breathalyzer indicated his BAC was 0.13.
The district court suppressed the evidence from the DWI investigation because the court found that the officer’s decision to begin sobriety testing was not based on reasonable suspicion. Instead, it found that the decision to begin the DWI investigation was the officer’s retaliatory response to him being “difficult.” The court cited the officer’s bodycam footage and ruled that the signs of impairment were considered only after the officer had already made the decision to begin a DWI investigation.
The court of appeals disagreed with the district court’s suppression of evidence, reversing its decision. It held that reasonable suspicion is an objective standard, and an officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant if sufficient facts support the escalation of a stop to a DWI investigation. The court found that the officer’s observations of red and watery eyes, unbuckled pants, stench of alcohol, and statements made provided a reasonable basis to expand the encounter into a DWI investigation, regardless of the officer’s motivation.
sThis ruling confirms that courts rely heavily on observable signs of impairment when deciding whether a DWI investigation is lawful, even if the officer’s own statements suggest a different motive. For defendants, this illustrates how difficult it can be to suppress evidence when classic signs of intoxication are present. While bodycam footage can create meaningful defense arguments challenging police conduct which appears to exceed constitutional limits, courts still grant police officers significant discretion in escalating stops to DWI investigations.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Lawyer Woodbury, Criminal Defense Attorney Minnesota, OWI Lawyer Wisconsin.