If You Pass Field Sobriety Testing and the Officer Lacks Reasonable Suspicion of Impairment, an Officer Cannot Give you a Preliminary Breath Test
In a recent decision, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a driver, reversing the Commissioner of Public Safety’s decision to revoke her driving privileges. The court found that the investigating officer lacked reasonable suspicion to administer a preliminary breath test (PBT), making the subsequent revocation improper.
Case Background
On October 2023, officers responded to a minor vehicle-pedestrian collision in a bar parking lot shortly after closing time. The driver, who had been backing out of a parking spot, accidentally struck a reportedly intoxicated pedestrian. Despite learning that the driver had been drinking earlier, the officer did not observe any physical signs of impairment such as slurred speech, bloodshot and watery eyes, or unstable balance. The driver also successfully passed the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, further reinforcing the officer’s initial belief that she was sober.
Satisfied with the investigation, the officer informed the driver that she would be free to leave shortly. However, after consulting with his supervising sergeant, he decided to request a PBT—stating that he wanted to confirm sobriety. The driver complied, and the test revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.145, leading to the revocation of her driving privileges.
Court’s Decision
The driver challenged the revocation, arguing that the PBT was conducted without reasonable suspicion of impairment, violating her rights under Minnesota’s implied consent law. The district court upheld the revocation, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the officer’s reasonable suspicion had been dispelled before administering the PBT.
The court emphasized that while the officer initially had reason to suspect impairment—given the late hour, bar setting, and minor accident—his subsequent observations eliminated that suspicion. The successful completion of the HGN test and the absence of traditional signs of intoxication meant there was no lawful basis for the PBT request. The court reiterated that officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting impairment before administering a breath test, citing precedent that prohibits further detainment once reasonable suspicion has been dispelled.
Implications
This ruling reinforces the legal standard that an officer cannot administer a PBT based on mere precaution or public perception concerns. The case serves as a reminder that reasonable suspicion must be based on objective facts, and once that suspicion is eliminated, further investigative actions may be deemed unconstitutional.
For drivers, this case highlights the importance of understanding their rights under Minnesota’s implied consent laws. For law enforcement, it underscores the necessity of adhering to proper protocols when requesting chemical tests. The decision in Lorsung v. Commissioner of Public Safety sets a significant precedent in ensuring that citizens are not subjected to unwarranted invasions of their rights under the guise of investigatory thoroughness.