Minnesota Court of Appeals, 1985

State v. Richardson

Minnesota Court of Appeals · Decided August 6, 1985 · Popovich, Foley, Leslie

372 N.W.2d 368; 1985 Minn. App. LEXIS 4873 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Minn. Atty. Gen., Edward Starr, St. Paul City Atty. James Tures, Asst. City Atty., St. Paul, for respondent., William E. Falvey, Chief Public Defender, Ellen Seesel, Asst. Public Defender, St. Paul, for appellant.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1986, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Minnesota statutes cited

Sections of the Minnesota Statutes this opinion cites.

Minn. Stat. § 169.121

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Coulthard (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)
State v. Campa (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Sirek (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

SUMMARY OPINION

POPOVICH, Chief Judge.

FACTS

St. Paul Police Officer Francis Zaruba observed a car speeding and passing ears in the parking lane on University Avenue. Zaruba turned around and followed the car into a liquor store parking lot a few blocks away. He approached the driver and asked for his driver’s license. Zaruba noted that the driver, identified as appellant, had a slight alcohol smell, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and appeared to fumble with his wallet. Believing appellant to be under the influence, Zaruba conducted two field sobriety tests which appellant did not perform satisfactorily.. He was placed under arrest and at the police station he was also video-taped. Following a court trial, he was convicted of gross misdemeanor DWI under Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 3a (1984) for driving while under the influence within five years of a prior DWI conviction. This was Richardson’s fifth DWI conviction. He appealed and we proceeded pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 142.03, respondent failing to file a brief.

DECISION

1. The record and evidence amply support the conviction.

2. Richardson also challenges the constitutionality of the stop pursuant to Minn.R.Crim.P. 28.02, subd. 11. This challenge was made for the first time on appeal and was not raised in the trial court. We find no merit to this contention. Additionally, the trial courts should always have the opportunity to act on an issue. A challenge of this nature, made for the first time on appeal, will not be considered.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.