Linette Lynn Cadwell, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A19-1797

Linette Lynn Cadwell, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Public Safety,
Respondent.

Filed August 31, 2020
Reversed
Reyes, Judge

Hubbard County District Court
File No. 29-CV-19-590

Barry L. Hogen, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Stephen D. Me lchionne, Assistant Attorney General,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s order sustaining the revocation of her
driving privileges based on its conclusion that the emergency-aid exception to the warrant
requirement justified an officer’s warrantless entry into her garage to arrest her for driving
while impaired (DWI). We reverse.

2
FACTS
Just before midnight on March 22, 2019, a sergeant of the Hubbard County Sheriff’s
Department and Park Rapids Police Department respo nded to a 911 call reporting a
suspected impaired driver, later identified as appellant Linette Lynn Cadwell. Respondent
commissioner of public safety issued appellant a notice of license revocation under the
Minnesota Implied Consent Law because she refused to submit to a breath test upon the
sergeant’s probable cause to believe that she had been driving while impaired. See Minn.
Stat. §§ 169A.50-.53 (2018). Appellant filed a petition for judicial review.
At her implied-consent hearing, the sergeant testified that police dispatch informed
him that a pickup truck had been “weaving” and “crossed a line. ” He testified that he
responded to the registered address of the vehicle and saw a truck matching its description
backing out of a g arage attached to the residence , which he found unusual for a vehicle
arriving home. He verified the address, pulled into the driveway, and got out of his vehicle
to approach appellant. The truck stopped briefly, then began to pull back into the garage,
hitting items on the inside of the garage or the garage frame as it did so. The truck appeared
to try to “push its way into the garage at a very slow speed” as its tires were spinning.
Appellant parked the truck, and the sergeant approached it, announced his presence,
and said “hello” as appellant exited the truck. Appellant responded, “hello.” The sergeant
then entered the garage. He told appellant that he was there to chec k and make sure she
was okay. He then noticed indicia of intoxication. The sergeant further testified that the
driving behavior the 911 caller reported is “often associated with impaired driving ” from
alcohol use, drug use, or a medical condition, such as diabetes.

3
Appellant argued that the sergeant violated her Fourth Amendment rights b y
entering her garage without a warrant, which she argued required suppression of the
evidence of her impairment that he obtained thereafter. The district court denied
appellant’s petition based on its determination that the emergency -aid exception to the
warrant requirement applied to the sergeant’s warrantless e ntry into the garage. This
appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant argues that her driver’s -license revocation should be rescinded because
any evidence of her intoxication resulted from an unconstitutional warrantless entry into
her garage, and the emergency-aid exception does not apply. We agree.
We will not set aside the district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous,
and we give “due regard” to its assessment of witness credibility. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01;
see also State v. Fleck, 777 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Minn. 2010) . We review de novo whether
a license revocation is based on a lawful search or whether an exception to th e warrant
requirement applies. Harrison v. Comm ’r of Pub. Safety, 781 N.W.2d 918, 920 (Minn.
App. 2010) (stating we review questions of law de novo); State v. Halla-Poe, 468 N.W.2d
570, 572 (Minn. App. 1991) (stating we determine whether officer’s warrantless entry is
justified as matter of law).
The commissioner must revoke the license of a person who either refuses to submit
to or fails a breath test that law enforcement requests upon probable cause to believe that
the person has been driving while impaired. Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subds. 3-4. A person
may challenge an implied -consent license revocation by challenging whether a police

4
officer “lawfully placed [the person] under arrest for violation of section 169A.20.” Minn.
Stat. § 169A.53, subd. 3(b)(2); see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.20 (2018).
Police must have a warrant to enter a constitutionally protected area, subject to
limited exceptions. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10; Haase v. Comm’r of
Pub. Safety, 679 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Minn. App. 2004). “If police enter a constitutionally
protected area without a warrant, that entry is presumed to be unreasonable, and evidence
obtained as a result must be suppressed []” if no exception applies. Id. at 747.
Constitutionally protected areas include a home’s curtilage. State v. Chute , 908 N.W.2d
578, 583 (Minn. 2018). A home’s garage is within its curtilage. State v. Crea, 233 N.W.2d
736, 739 (Minn. 1975).
The emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement applies when (1) police
“‘have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate
need for their assistance for the protection of life or property ’ and [(2)] ‘there [is] some
reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergenc y with the area
or place to be searched.’” Ries v. State, 920 N.W.2d 620, 632 (Minn. 2018) (quoting State
v. Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d 783, 788 (Minn. 2007)).1 The exception allows officers to “enter
a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to a n injured occupant or to
protect one from imminent injury.” State v. McClain, 862 N.W.2d 717, 721 (Minn. App.
2015). The officer must have an objective basis for the need to render aid. Ries, 920

1 The Minnesota Supreme Court recently clarified that this test no longer includes a prong
that had required that an officer “not be primarily motivated by the intent to arrest and seize
evidence.” Ries, 920 N.W.2d at 632 n.6.

5
N.W.2d at 632. “The officer’s subjective motivation is irrelevant.” Id. at 630-31 (quoting
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 404, 126 S. Ct. 1943, 1948 (2006)). The state bears
the burden of demonstrating that the exception applies. Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 788.
In reviewing this objective standard, we consider if, “with the facts available to the
officer at the moment of the seizure or search, [] a person of reasonable caution [would]
believe that the action taken was appropriate.” See State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 223
(Minn. 1992) (concluding emergency-aid exception does not apply when “officer has been
specifically told that help was not needed, and can see that medica l aid is already being
provided”). It is the “rare case[]” in which the emergency -aid exception applies. County
of Hennepin v. Law Enf’t Labor Servs., Inc., Local No. 19, 527 N.W.2d 821, 826 (Minn.
1995). This is not that rare case.
Here, the district court found that the sergeant had concerns about the driver’s
impairment “by alcohol or other substance or [] a medical issue.” It also found that the
sergeant “entered the garage for the sole purpose of conducting [an] investigation” and that
appellant did not have an opportunity to shut the garage door before the sergeant entered.
The district court then determined that the driving conduct that the 911 caller reported and
the sergeant observed at the residence made it “objectively reasonable that [the] Sergeant
[] believed that [appellant] was suffering from a medical issue.”
Appellant appears to challenge only the first prong of the emergency-aid exception.
See Ries, 920 N.W.2d at 632. As an initial matter, s he argues that the exception requires
an officer to have “evidence approximating probable cause” that there is an immediate need
to protect life or property. But, as the state notes, the “probable cause” language from Ries,

6
920 N.W.2d at 632, and Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 788, relates to the second prong of the
test, regarding the location of the emergency. The first prong requires only that there be
objectively “reasonable g rounds” to believe there is an emergency and an “immediate
need” for assistance to protect life or property. See Ries, 920 N.W.2d at 632.
Emergency-aid-exception cases generally involve a person who is nonresponsive or
with whom officers otherwise cannot communicate. See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 698 N.W.2d
18, 23 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying exception to officer’s welfare check of driver sleeping
or unconscious at wheel to ensure driver “does not require additional medical assistance”);
see also, e.g., Ries, 920 N.W.2d at 623-24 (applying exception when subject of warrantless
search intoxicated and asleep on couch with gun); Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d at 7 89-90
(applying exception when no response from resident of home). In contrast, in Othoudt, the
supreme court concluded that the exception did not apply in part because the intended
subject of the aid stated that she did not need help. See 482 N.W.2d at 223.
Here, appellant’s affirmative response to the sergeant of “hello” indicates that she
had the ability to accept or decline assistance. The sergeant could see appellant, appellant
could exit her truck, and she could respond to the sergeant. Nevertheless, the sergeant
entered the garage before appellant could accept or decline any assistance. While officers
may work in a “protective capacity” within the exception to prevent injury or violence, the
sergeant’s subjective speculation that he “may be dealing with a medical situation” based
solely on appellant’s dr iving conduct does not provide an objectively reasonable basis to
believe that an emergency and an “immediate need” to provide aid existed. See Ries, 920
N.W.2d at 624, 630-32.

7
The state compares the facts here to those in Halla-Poe. 468 N.W.2d 570. In Halla-
Poe, we concluded that the emergency -aid exception applied when a witness called 911
and reported that a driver had been speeding, swerved sharply, hit the median curb multiple
times, and stopped in a driving lane. Id. at 571-73. The witness stopped to help the driver
and drove her home based on an address he found on a check . Id. at 572. The witness
informed police that the driver could not walk on her own or talk and of his concern that
she could not take care of herself . Id. Not only is this driving conduct more severe than
appellant’s, but the witness in Halla-Poe also reported on the condition of the driver,
including her inability to walk or talk. These circumstances are not present here.
Finally, in Haase, we stated that the appell ant’s “driving offense, though serious,
does not supply exigent circumstances that justify a warrantless entry into a constitutionally
protected area.” 679 N.W.2d at 747 (emphasis added). Haase involved a report that the
appellant’s vehicle “had crossed the center line several times,” and law enforcement arrived
at the appellant’s residence to find him pulling into his driveway. Id. at 745. Although we
did not specific ally address the emergency -aid exception in Hasse, that exception is “ a
subset of the exigent -circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.” Ries, 920
N.W.2d at 631 (describing that courts have traditionally applied exigent -circumstances
exception in instances of “hot pursui t” or “imminent destruction of evidence,” but that it
includes emergency aid as well (quotations omitted)) . Applying the emergency -aid
exception here based only on appellant’s driving conduct could expand the exception to
reach any driving conduct indicat ive of impaired driving, including that in Haase. This

8
would cause the exception to apply in much more than the “rare case[].” Law Enf’t Labor
Servs., Inc., 527 N.W.2d at 826.
Reversed.