{"id":1070,"date":"2020-12-08T08:15:15","date_gmt":"2020-12-08T13:15:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/neuvillelawoffice.com\/?p=1070"},"modified":"2020-12-08T08:15:15","modified_gmt":"2020-12-08T13:15:15","slug":"driveway-arrest-ruled-unconstitutional-by-court-of-appeals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/neuvillelawoffice.com\/driveway-arrest-ruled-unconstitutional-by-court-of-appeals\/","title":{"rendered":"Driveway Arrest Ruled Unconstitutional by Court of Appeals"},"content":{"rendered":"

A motorist who has been lawfully arrested for driving while impaired must submit to a chemical test to determine the presence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance. The Minnesota implied-consent statute authorizes the revocation of the driver’s license of anyone who either fails a blood, breath or urine test or refuses to submit to testing.<\/p>\n

An unsuccessful challenge in district court to his license being revoked resulted in an appeal by a motorist who claimed he was unlawfully arrested as he slept in his car that was parked in the driveway of his home. The decision filed on October 26, 2020 by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Scott Thomas LaClair v. Commissioner of Public Safety<\/em><\/a> (Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CV-19-5176) \u00a0analyzed the constitutional protections people have not only within their home but also in the areas immediately surrounding it.<\/p>\n

Facts of the case<\/h2>\n

A police officer passed a home in a residential neighborhood while on patrol late at night. A vehicle parked in the driveway with its headlights on was noticed by the officer, but he continued on patrol without stopping. He drove by the house again about an hour later and, upon seeing that the headlights were still on, stopped at the end of the driveway, directed his patrol car’s spotlight toward the vehicle in the driveway and exited his patrol car.<\/p>\n

The police officer illuminated the interior of the vehicle with a flashlight and saw the appellant, Scott Thomas LeClair, seated in the driver’s seat. The officer testified at the implied-consent hearing that he saw the appellant’s body laying over the center console and wanted to reposition the individual to prevent his airway from being obstructed.<\/p>\n

The appellant woke up when the police officer opened the door on the driver’s side of the vehicle and said, in response to the officer asking why he was asleep in the vehicle, that he “got home safe” after drinking too much. The appellant was arrested for driving while impaired after completing field sobriety tests.<\/p>\n

At the hearing challenging the revocation of his license, the appellant claimed his arrest was unlawful. He argued that both the Minnesota and federal constitutions prohibited the officer from entering onto the driveway in the manner that he did. In response, the people argued that the officer had the right to enter a publicly accessible area such as the driveway. The district court apparently agreed and refused to vacate the revocation.<\/p>\n

Issues raised by the motorist on appeal<\/h2>\n

An arrest of a person suspected of driving while impaired must be lawful to satisfy one of the requirements for application of the implied-consent statute<\/a>. The appellant challenged his arrest on two grounds:<\/p>\n