Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Crow Wing County District Court
File No. T2961539
Gerald Freeman, Suite 730, 5500 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55416 (for appellant)
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Steven R. Qualley, 308 First Street, P.O. Box 298, Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Crippen, Presiding Judge, Toussaint, Chief Judge, and Klaphake, Judge.
When appellant was arrested he was given an implied consent advisory pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(b) (1994). Because appellant was operating a snowmobile and a different advisory is prescribed for snowmobile operators under Minn. Stat. § 84.911, subd. 3 (1994), he contends that his right to due process was violated. But the facts of the case do not present this issue. Snowmobile operators may be given the same implied consent advisory as automobile operators when the snowmobile is operated on a public street. Minn. Stat. § 84.87, subd. 1(e) (1994) ("[a]ll provisions of chapter 169 shall apply to the operation of snowmobiles upon streets and highways"). The record shows that appellant "had been traveling northbound on Robert Street" when he lost control of his snowmobile.
Appellant contends, while not denying that he was operating his snowmobile on a public street when the mishap occurred, that this fact was omitted from the stipulated facts. In the facts stated by stipulation after the trial court denied appellant's motion to suppress, the parties concurred that the accident occurred "within the city limits of Crosslake, Minnesota." But we are required to review the suppression order, and the trial court, in its order denying suppression, states that its decision was "[b]ased on the reports submitted by the State" and "the arguments of counsel." In the suppression hearing, the State submitted that appellant was driving on Robert Street and that fact was not disputed.