Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety

361 N.W.2d 145, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3784

CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

DocketC4-84-799

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 361 N.W.2d 145 (Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 361 N.W.2d 145, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3784 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

FACTS

The facts relevant to this appeal are contained in Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 353 N.W.2d 659 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) {Bounds I). In Bounds I, this court held that, in the absence of a fresh pursuit, a peace officer outside his jurisdiction has the authority of a private citizen, but may not administer post-D.W.I. arrest procedures. The Commissioner of Public Safety petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of this decision, and the supreme court remanded the matter to us for reconsideration in light of its subsequent opinion in Windschitl v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 355 N.W.2d 146 (Minn.1984).

*146 DECISION

1. In Windschitl, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a claim that a preliminary screening test for D.W.I. was improperly administered because the police officer was outside his jurisdiction. 1 The court held alternatively that:

(1) the officer was within his jurisdiction and could therefore lawfully administer the preliminary screening test; and

(2) if he was outside his jurisdiction, the arrest was a valid citizen’s arrest even without the preliminary breath test. Id. at 148-149.

“We conclude that, whether it be considered an arrest by a peace officer or by a private citizen, it was a valid arrest.” Id. at 147.

2. The court did not directly confront the issue presented in Bounds I: whether the peace officer making a citizen’s arrest outside his jurisdiction in the absence of hot pursuit may administer post-D.W.I. arrest procedures. However, the Windschitl opinion indicates that a peace officer making a citizen’s arrest retains his status as peace officer and may engage in some activities otherwise barred to a citizen, such as using flashing lights and a siren. Id. at 149. It follows that once a valid arrest is made, a peace officer may then implement post-D.W.I. procedures under this special status. Bounds I is thus vacated in light of the supreme court opinion in Wind-schitl. The trial court’s order sustaining the revocation of Bounds’ driving privileges is affirmed.

Trial court’s order affirmed.

1

. We recognize that this issue was also addressed in State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn.1981).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

FACTS

The facts relevant to this appeal are contained in Bounds v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 353 N.W.2d 659 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) {Bounds I). In Bounds I, this court held that, in the absence of a fresh pursuit, a peace officer outside his jurisdiction has the authority of a private citizen, but may not administer post-D.W.I. arrest procedures. The Commissioner of Public Safety petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of this decision, and the supreme court remanded the matter to us for reconsideration in light of its subsequent opinion in Windschitl v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 355 N.W.2d 146 (Minn.1984).

*146 DECISION

1. In Windschitl, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a claim that a preliminary screening test for D.W.I. was improperly administered because the police officer was outside his jurisdiction. 1 The court held alternatively that:

(1) the officer was within his jurisdiction and could therefore lawfully administer the preliminary screening test; and

(2) if he was outside his jurisdiction, the arrest was a valid citizen’s arrest even without the preliminary breath test. Id. at 148-149.

“We conclude that, whether it be considered an arrest by a peace officer or by a private citizen, it was a valid arrest.” Id. at 147.

2. The court did not directly confront the issue presented in Bounds I: whether the peace officer making a citizen’s arrest outside his jurisdiction in the absence of hot pursuit may administer post-D.W.I. arrest procedures. However, the Windschitl opinion indicates that a peace officer making a citizen’s arrest retains his status as peace officer and may engage in some activities otherwise barred to a citizen, such as using flashing lights and a siren. Id. at 149. It follows that once a valid arrest is made, a peace officer may then implement post-D.W.I. procedures under this special status. Bounds I is thus vacated in light of the supreme court opinion in Wind-schitl. The trial court’s order sustaining the revocation of Bounds’ driving privileges is affirmed.

Trial court’s order affirmed.

1

. We recognize that this issue was also addressed in State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn.1981).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 N.W.2d 145, 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 3784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bounds-v-commissioner-of-public-safety-minnctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack