This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Brian Lee Sternquist,
Filed April 10, 2007
Pine County District Court
File No. K2-04-577
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2134; and
John K. Carlson,
John M. Stuart, State Public
Defender, Davi E. Axelson, Assistant State Public Defender,
Considered and decided by Randall, Presiding Judge; Hudson, Judge; and Dietzen, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
Appellant Brian L. Sternquist challenges his conviction of first-degree DWI in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 1(1), .24 (2004). Appellant argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence because the arresting officer lacked jurisdictional authority to conduct a preliminary breath test. Because we conclude that the arresting officer acted within the scope of his jurisdictional authority, we affirm.
On May 13, 2004, while patrolling in
determining that appellant did not have a valid driver’s license and noticing
indicia of intoxication, the officer performed a preliminary breath test, which
indicated that appellant had an alcohol concentration of .203. The officer arrested appellant and
transported him to the
the omnibus hearing, appellant moved to suppress evidence of his breath test,
arguing that the Mille Lacs tribal police officer lacked jurisdictional
authority to conduct a preliminary breath test.
Respondent countered by arguing that the officer’s authority was derived
from a cooperation agreement between the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (Band) and
D E C I S I O N
reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently
review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court
erred in suppressing—or not suppressing the evidence.” State
v. Johnson, 645 N.W.2d 505, 508 (
Minnesota law “[t]wo or more governmental units, by agreement . . .
may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the . . .
parties or any similar powers, including those which are the same except for
the territorial limits within which they may be exercised.”
In the event that an agreement authorizes the exercise of peace officer or police powers by an officer appointed by one of the governmental units within the jurisdiction of the other governmental unit, an officer acting pursuant to that agreement has the full and complete authority of a peace officer as though appointed by both governmental units and licensed by the state of Minnesota, provided that:
(1) the peace officer has successfully completed professionally recognized peace officer preemployment education which the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training has found comparable to Minnesota peace officer preemployment education; and
(2) the officer is duly licensed or certified by the peace officer licensing or certification authority of the state in which the officer’s appointing authority is located.
Band’s cooperation agreement with
responding to an emergency call for assistance, responding to an accident, responding to a crime witnessed by the officer where public safety is at risk, acting at the request of the Pine County Sheriff or a Pine County Deputy Sheriff, whether the request is in person or through dispatch, or exercising peace officer arrest authority pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 629.40.
Law Enforcement Cooperation Agreement ¶ 4.1.
Thus, the Mille Lacs tribal police
officer had jurisdictional authority if he was acting in accordance with the
cooperation agreement and had the requisite education and licensing
qualifications. Here, the uncontroverted
record establishes that the officer responded to the Pine County Sheriff’s
request for aid in a situation where public safety was at risk, and for five
years the State of