The Commissioner of Public Safety appeals the trial court's order, following an implied consent hearing, rescinding respondent's driver's license revocation under Minn.Stat. § 169.123 (1982 Supp. 1983).

FACTS

Respondent Thomas Dietrich hit a parked long-bed trailer while driving on Kyle Avenue in Golden Valley. His white Mustang car was seriously damaged.

Golden Valley Police officer Mark Pearson was on duty the evening of May 14, 1984, and was dispatched to the scene. As the only witness at the implied consent hearing, he described the scene of the accident and the damage to the car. In addition, he relayed, over hearsay objections, the comments of several bystanders indicating that Dietrich was the driver of the car. Pearson testified that Dietrich's brother and sister, present at the scene, told him that Dietrich had been driving the Mustang and that their father had picked him up and driven him home. This testimony was allowed for the purpose of showing Pearson's basis for seeking out and questioning Dietrich. The bystanders' statements did not indicate whether Dietrich appeared to be under the influence.

Pearson then testified that he drove to Dietrich's house and met Dietrich's father, walking, on the way. The father flagged Pearson down and accompanied him to the house. There Pearson noted that Dietrich showed signs of intoxication, and when asked whether he had been drinking, replied that he had "had a couple." Pearson administered field sobriety tests, some of which Dietrich failed, and a breath test, which registered more than .10.

Pearson did not testify concerning the time at which the accident occurred, although he answered "yes" when asked if he was on duty "the night of May 14, 1984, at approximately 9:19 p.m." Pearson testified that the implied consent advisory was begun at 10:24 p.m.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in determining that the Commissioner of Public Safety failed to establish probable cause for an implied consent license revocation when no evidence linked the time of the collision to the time when Dietrich was determined to be under the influence of alcohol?

ANALYSIS

A license revocation under Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 4 (1982), requires "reasonable and probable grounds to believe the person had been driving, operating or in physical control of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance."

The evidence establishes reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Dietrich was driving the car involved in the collision and that Dietrich was under the influence of alcohol at the time Pearson observed him and administered the field sobriety and breath tests. However, the evidence does not establish the necessary connection between the two events. Officer Pearson answered "yes" when asked at the implied consent hearing if he was on duty "the night of May 14, 1984, at approximately 9:19 p.m." and testified that he began the implied consent advisory a little more than one hour later. The time when Pearson was on duty, however, does not establish when the accident occurred or when Pearson believed Dietrich to have been driving. The fact that Dietrich was involved in an accident and was later found to be under the influence establishes a sequence of events but provides no time frame for the sequence. The presence of people near the car when Pearson arrived suggests proximity in time, but this inference is not sufficient to establish the necessary temporal connection.

The trial court properly found that this testimony was not sufficient to provide reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Dietrich was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, as is required for a license revocation under Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 4 (1982).

DECISION

We affirm the trial court's rescission of Dietrich's license revocation.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Mar 5, 1985

363 N.W.2d 801 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

holding signs of intoxication following car accident did not establish probable cause absent evidence to establish necessary temporal connection

Summary of this case from Stroeing v. Commissioner of Public Safety

concluding that probable cause did not exist where record established that defendant drove and was later found intoxicated but not that he drove while intoxicated

Summary of this case from State v. Lystad

In Dietrich, this court affirmed the district court's order rescinding the revocation of a driver's license on the basis that the state failed to establish "reasonable and probable grounds to believe that" the defendant had been driving under the influence of alcohol. 363 N.W.2d at 803.

Summary of this case from State v. MacElree

In Dietrich, we affirmed a district court's determination that the evidence failed to link the time of driving to when the driver was found to be under the influence.

Summary of this case from Christianson v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety

In Dietrich, an officer arrived at the scene of an accident after the driver left the scene, and bystanders identified the defendant as the driver of the vehicle.

Summary of this case from Gruidl v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety

In Dietrich there was no connection between the driver's accident and his inebriation because there was no evidence about when the accident occurred and no one who saw the petitioner at the scene testified about whether he was inebriated at that time.

Summary of this case from LaBrash v. Comm. of Public Safety

In Dietrich, this court recognized that there must be a temporal causal relationship between the drinking and the collision.

Summary of this case from Weldon v. Commisioner of Public Safety

In Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 363 N.W.2d 801 (Minn.Ct.App. 1985), this court held that evidence which falls short of establishing a connection between the defendant's observed intoxication and his prior operation of a motor vehicle is insufficient to demonstrate probable cause to arrest for DWI. Dietrich did not announce any new or novel principle of implied consent law, but merely applied the familiar rule that probable cause exists only "where all the facts and circumstances would warrant a cautious person to believe that the suspect was driving or operating a vehicle while under the influence."

Summary of this case from Eggersgluss v. Commisioner of Public Safety

In Dietrich this court upheld the rescission of a driver's license revocation because the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary connection between the driver's drinking and driving.

Summary of this case from Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety

In Dietrich the evidence established reasonable and probable grounds to believe that Dietrich was driving the car involved in the collision and that Dietrich was under the influence of alcohol at the time the officer observed him in his home.

Summary of this case from FOSTER v. COM'R OF PUBLIC SAFETY

In Dietrich the passerby who commented that Dietrich was the driver did not indicate that Dietrich was under the influence.

Summary of this case from Bohlig v. Commissioner of Public Safety

In Dietrich, this court affirmed the trial court's rescission of the revocation of Dietrich's driving privileges, because the evidence presented did not establish the necessary connection between the time Dietrich had been driving and the time he was found to be under the influence.

Summary of this case from Burke v. Commissioner of Public Safety

In Dietrich this court affirmed a finding of no probable cause because there was no evidence in the record to establish when the accident occurred or when the officer believed that Dietrich was driving; Dietrich does not establish a rule of law that the officer must explicitly testify as to the time of an accident.

Summary of this case from GRAHAM v. COM'R OF PUBLIC SAFETY

In Dietrich, there was no evidence which established when the accident occurred or when the officer believed that Dietrich was driving.

Summary of this case from Hasbrook v. Commissioner of Public Safety

In Dietrich, this court affirmed a trial court's rescission of a license revocation because the evidence did not establish the necessary temporal connection between the driving of the car involved in the accident and the driver's intoxication.

Summary of this case from Hasbrook v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

FACTS

ISSUE

ANALYSIS

DECISION

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

FACTS

ISSUE

ANALYSIS

DECISION

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Dietrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations