William Robert Johnson, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A16-1501

William Robert Johnson, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

Filed June 12, 2017
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Crow Wing County District Court
File No. 18-CV-16-429

William Robert Johnson, Crosslake, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Lindsay Lavoie, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Peterson, Judge; and
Johnson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JOHNSON, Judge
The commissioner of public safety revoked William Robert Johnson ’s driver’s
license after he was arrested for driving while impaired. Johnson petitioned to rescind the
revocation. The district court denied the petition. We affirm.

2
FACTS
On December 28, 2015, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Officer Lasher of the Crosslake
Police Department observed Johnson’s vehicle speeding . The officer ’s radar device
showed that Jo hnson’s vehicle was traveling 60 m.p.h. in a 45 -m.p.h. zone and, shortly
thereafter, 76 m.p.h. in a 55-m.p.h. zone.
Officer Lasher initiated a traffic stop. Johnson got out of the vehicle and spoke with
Officer Lasher while standing approximately three to four feet away from him. Officer
Lasher observed that Johnson had bloodshot and watery eyes and slurred speech. Officer
Lasher asked Johnson to perform field sobriety tests. Johnson was unable to complete the
horizontal-gaze nystagmus test, and he declined to perform the nine -step walk-and-turn
test and the one-leg-stand test. Officer Lasher attempted to administer a preliminary breath
test (PBT), but the PBT device malfunctioned. Officer Lasher radioed for assistance from
Officer Garcia of the Br eezy Point Police Department and asked him to bring his PBT
device. Officer Garcia administered a PBT, which indicated an alcohol concentration of
0.15.
Officer Lasher arrest ed Johnson for DWI and transported him to the Crow Wing
County jail. Officer L asher read Johnson the implied-consent advisory. After speaking
with an attorney, Johnson agreed to take a breath test. The test was administered by Officer
Hicks, a correctional officer for Crow Wing County who is a certified DataMaster operator.
The breath test revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.12. The department of public safety
revoked Johnson’s driver’s license.
3
In January 2016, Johnson petitioned the district court for rescission of the revocation
of his driver ’s license. The district court conducted a n implied -consent hearing in late
March 2016. Johnson appeared pro se. The commissioner called three witnesses: Officer
Lasher, Officer Garcia, and Officer Hicks . Johnson testified but did not call any other
witnesses. In July 2016, the district court issued an order in which it identified eight issues,
rejected Johnson’s argument with respect to each issue, and denied the petition. Johnson
appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Johnson argues that the district court erred by denying his petition to r escind his
license revocation. We construe his pro se brief to make three specific arguments.
I. Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop
Johnson first argues that Officer Lasher did not have a reasonable, articulable
suspicion of criminal activity to justify the investigatory stop of his vehicle.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. The
Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their motor vehicles.
State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84, 87 (Minn. 2000). As a general rule, a law -enforcement
officer may not seize a person in a motor vehicle without probable cause. State v. Flowers,
734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007). But a law -enforcement officer may, consistent with
the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief investigatory detention of a person in a motor
vehicle if the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion tha t the person might be
4
engaged in criminal activity. State v. Diede , 795 N.W.2d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011) (citing
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)). Even a minor traffic violation, “however
insignificant,” may justify a traffic stop. State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Minn.
1997); see also B erge v. Commissioner of Pub . Safety, 374 N.W.2d 730, 732 -33 (Minn.
1985). To be specific, a reasonable suspicion of speeding justifies a traffic stop. See, e.g.,
State v. Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415, 418 (Minn. 2003); State v. Thiel, 846 N.W.2d 605, 609-10
(Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2014).
In this case, Officer Lasher testified that he saw Johnson driving fast and used his
radar device to measure Johnson’s speed at 76 m.p.h. in a 55-m.p.h. zone. Officer Lasher
also testified that his radar device was working normally. The district court found Officer
Lasher to be credible and relied on his testimony in finding that the officer “articulated a
particular and objective basis for suspecting the Petitioner of criminal activity (speeding)
and, therefore, had reasonable articulable suspicion to stop Petitioner’s vehicle.”
Johnson challenges the district court’s reliance on Officer Lasher’s testimony on the
ground that the officer’s testimony about the video -recording captured by his dashboard
camera is contradicted by the contents of that video-recording. Johnson attempted t o
persuade the district court that the video -recording undercut Off icer Lasher’s testimony,
but the district court found otherwise. A district court’s credibility finding is entitled to
deference on appeal. Snyder v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety , 744 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Minn.
App. 2008).
In Minnesota, it is unlawful to drive at a speed in excess of the posted speed limit.
Minn. Stat. § 169.14, subd. 2(a) (201 4). In light of the law and the facts found by the
5
district court, which are not clearly erroneous, Officer Lasher had a reasonable articulable
suspicion that Johnson was engaging in unlawful behavior. Thus, the traffic stop was not
unreasonable.
II. Probable Cause for Arrest
Johnson also argues that Officer Lasher did not have probable cause to arrest him
and, thus, did not have a justification for requiring him to submit to a breath test.
A person may be required to submit to a chemical test of his or her blood, breath, or
urine if “an officer has probable cause to believe the person was driving, o perating, or in
physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section 169A.20 (driving while
impaired).” Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 1(b) (2014). Probable cause exists if “‘there are
facts and circumstances known to the officer which would warrant a prudent man in
believing that the individual was driving or was operating ’ or was in physical control of a
motor vehicle while impaired.” State v. Koppi , 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011)
(quoting State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42, 202 N.W.2d 878, 881 (1972)). “The existence
of probable cause depends on ‘the particular circumstances, conditioned by [officers’] own
observations and information and guided by the whole of their police experience. ’” Id.
(quoting State v. Olson , 436 N.W.2d 92, 94 (Minn. 198 9), aff’d sub nom. Minnesota v.
Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 110 S. Ct. 1684 (1990)). “Nonetheless, ‘[t]he reasonableness of the
officer’s actions is an objective inquiry,’ even if reasonableness is evaluated in light of an
officer’s training and experience. ” Id. at 363 (quoting State v. Hardy , 577 N.W.2d 212,
216 (Minn. 1998)). “The fact that it later turns out that the officers were wrong does not
6
mean that they did not have probable cause at the time they made their assessment.” State
v. Johnson, 314 N.W.2d 229, 230 (Minn. 1982).
In this case, Officer Lasher testified that he observed that Johnson ’s eyes were
watery and bloodshot and that his speech was slurred. The officer also testified that
Johnson did not pass two field sobriety tests. And Officer Garcia testified that a PBT
indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.15. Based on that evidence, the district court found
that the facts known to Officer Lasher “would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence
to entertain a strong and honest suspicion that Petitioner was driving while intoxicated. ”
On appeal, Johnson does not challenge the evidence underlying the district court’s finding
or the district court’s application of the probable-cause standard. We agree with the district
court’s analysis in all respects. Thus, Officer Lasher had probable cause to arrest Johnson
and was justified in requiring Johnson to submit to chemical testing.
III. Reliability of Breath Test
Johnson last argues that the result of the breath test is unreliable.
A driver may challenge the revocation of his or her driver’s license by raising the
following issue: “Was the testing method used valid and reliable and were the test results
accurately evaluated?” Minn. Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b)(10) ( Supp. 2015). If a breath
test is challenged, the commissioner has the initial burden of showing that “the test is
reliable and ‘that its administration in the particular instance conformed to the procedure
necessary to ensure reliability.’” Kramer v. Commissioner of P ub. Safety, 706 N.W.2d
231, 235 (Minn. App. 2005) ( quoting State v. Dille, 258 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Minn. 1977)).
If the commissioner satisfies the initial burden, “[t]he driver must then produce evidence
7
to impeach the credibility of the test results.” Bielejeski v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety ,
351 N.W.2d 664, 666 (Minn. App. 1984).
In this case, Johnson raised this issu e in the district court. During the
commissioner’s case, Officer Hicks testified that he is a certified DataMaster operator, that
he received training from the bureau of criminal apprehension (BCA), and that the
DataMaster performed diagnostic tests within acceptable limits on the day in question .
Johnson cross -examined Officer Hicks by asking him whether he is an “international
scientist in measurement,” a “doctor,” or a “forensic scientist.” Officer Hicks answered
each question in the negative. Johnson concluded by asking Officer Hicks whether he
“performed any diagnostic tests that would have recorded bias and uncertainties of your
DataMaster machine?” Officer Hicks again answered in the negative.
The district court resolved the issue by citing and quoting the following statute:
[T]he results of a breath test, when performed by a person who
has been fully trained in the use of an infrared or other
approved breath -testing instrument, . . . pursuant to training
given or approved by the commissioner of public safety . . . ,
are admissible in evidence without antecedent expert testimony
that an infrared or other approved breath -testing instrument
provides a trustworthy and reliable measure of the alcohol in
the breath.

Minn. Stat. § 634.16 (201 4). The district court noted the evidence that Officer Hicks is a
certified DataMaster operator and that he had received training and certific ation from the
BCA. The district court also found that “nothing out of the ordinary occurred that would
skew the reliability of the test results.”
8
On appeal, Johnson contends that the DataMaster is not accurate or reliable. He
makes a few broad assert ions in support of that contention, but he does not cite any
evidence that was introduced at the implied -consent hearing. His cross -examination of
Officer Hicks did not expose any particular reasons why the test results might not be
accurate or reliable. Likewise, Johnson did not testify to the assertions that he makes in
his appellate brief. His own testimony was very brief and was limited to introducing
evidence that he was taking prescription medication o n the day of his arrest. Given the
scarcity of relevant evidence elicited by Johnson, we conclude that he failed to introduce
any evidence that might “impeach the credibility of the test results.” See Bielejeski, 351
N.W.2d at 666. Thus, the DataMaster test results are reliable.
In sum, the district court did not err by denying Johnson’s petition to rescind the
revocation of his driver’s license.
Affirmed.