Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue for the Supreme Court to resolve in this case stems from the arrest of Appellant Brian Hester. Appellant was arrested by a Lower Sioux Indian Community Police officer on DWI charges. The temperature was between 10 and 15 degrees below zero at the time the Lower Sioux officer stopped Appellant. Appellant was transferred to a local jail for further tests to determine the level of Appellantâs impairment. After completing the field sobriety tests at the jail, the officer placed Appellant under arrest. Appellant was advised that refusing to submit to further testing would constitute a crime. Appellant refused and was charged with first-degree driving while impaired, and first-degree test refusal. A jury found Appellant guilty of only the test-refusal charge. Appellant sought to vacate the judgment, claiming that the arresting officer was not a âpeace officerâ as defined by state law. Appellate courts found that the officer was indeed a police officer, and had the authority to require Appellant to take the subsequent tests. On further review, the Supreme Court found that the Lower Sioux were not in compliance with state law requiring them to carry the correct liability insurance limits at the time Appellant was arrested. The lack of liability insurance undermined the officerâs authority to request that Appellant take the subsequent chemical tests. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated Appellantâs conviction for criminal test refusal.

A Hennepin County grand jury indicted Appellant Gary Vue with several gang-related felonies. A jury found Appellant guilty, and the district court convicted him and imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 31 years. Appellant appealed his conviction, claiming that the district court erroneously admitted his statement to the police, and that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him. In December, 2005, police received a tip on the whereabouts of Appellant and his brother who were both suspects in the shooting death of Za Xiong. The tip lead police to Appellant then living in Sacramento, California. The police went to Sacramento to interview him. Within eight minutes, Appellant confessed to the shooting. Police did not believe they had the authority to arrest Appellant outside their jurisdiction. They returned to Hennepin County and got an arrest warrant for the brother. Three years later, in March, 2009, police were able to apprehend Appellant in St. Paul. Appellant pled not guilty, and sought to exclude his statements made to police while in Sacramento. The district court denied Appellantâs motion to suppress, concluding that Appellant was not in custody and, therefore, the police were not required legally to advise him of his Miranda rights. The Supreme Court held that the lower court was correct to deny Appellantâs motion to suppress his statement to the police in Sacramento. Furthermore, it found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to allow a rational trier of fact to convict him of the gang-related felonies. The Court accordingly affirmed Appellantâs conviction.