There are many circumstances where a person accused of drunk driving in Michigan may believe that they were entrapped. For example, they may be at a party that is broken up. The police wait at the end of the street and stop the party-goers as the attempt to follow police orders and leave the party. Is this entrapment?
The recent case of State v. Sedahl, 2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 discussed this question in a sort of roundabout way when the defense attorney claimed that a failure to protect the community justified in dismissal of his client’s case. The trial court agreed. The facts of the case are as follows.
On April 16, 2009, at approximately 1:53 a.m., Dunn County Sheriff’s Deputy Dennis Rhead was flagged down by Jason Sedahl, who was standing on the sidewalk along North Broadway Street in the City of Menomonie. Sedahl asked Rhead to give him a ride to his vehicle. Rhead responded that he could not give Sedahl a ride, but agreed to call a cab for Sedahl. Sedahl stated he was going to take the cab to the Red Cedar Medical Center, where his vehicle was parked, and from there he planned to drive home. Rhead advised Sedahl he should not drive because he would be arrested or would injure someone. Sedahl repeated that he intended to drive himself home. Rhead then notified the Menomonie Police Department that Sedahl intended to drive.
A police officer, responded to the Red Cedar Medical Center, and when Sedahl arrived, he approached Rauscher and identified himself. Rauscher told him she was there to make sure he did not drive. Rauscher offered to call Sedahl a cab or call someone to give him a ride home.
Throughout her contact with Sedahl, Rauscher repeatedly told him he would be arrested if he attempted to drive. Despite these warnings, Sedahl ultimately entered his vehicle, started it, and revved the engine. Rauscher then parked her patrol car behind Sedahl’s vehicle to prevent him from driving away and arrested him.
At the trial court Sedahl argued the community caretaker doctrine placed an affirmative duty on the officers in this case to prevent him from driving while intoxicated. The trial court agreed, and dismissed the drunk driving case. However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals noted that the only Wisconsin case law dealing with the community caretaker doctrine uses the doctrine to justify warrantless searches and seizures.
The recognized defense closest to Sedahl’s theory is entrapment, which is available to a defendant who has been induced by law enforcement to commit an offense which the defendant was not otherwise disposed to commit. In finding that the officers did not “entrap” Sedahl, the court found that the officers did not induce Sedahl to commit an offense, but instead repeatedly attempted to talk him out of driving while intoxicated. They also offered to find him an alternate means of getting home. Moreover, the offense was one that Sedahl was otherwise disposed to commit. He told the officers multiple times that he wanted to drive, even though he knew he was intoxicated.
In reversing the trial court, the court of appeals found that no Wisconsin case holds that the doctrine places an affirmative duty on police to intercede and take a person into preventative detention prior to the commission of a crime. Furthermore, that no Wisconsin case authorizes the dismissal of criminal charges based on law enforcement officers’ failure to perform community caretaker functions. Sedahl attempted to create a defense where none existed.
If you’ve been arrested in Michigan for drunk driving, and think that you’ve been entrapped, then you should discuss this with your Michigan DUI attorney. If you’re right, it could lead to the dismissal of your case.
Get a FREE confidential CASE EVALUATION on your Michigan OWI/OWVI/DUI by calling (248) 306-9159, or filling out this consultation request form. Call now, there’s no obligation!
