Refusal to bind defendant over on the operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) charge & dismissal of the charge; Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches & seizures; Denial of the interlocutory application for leave to appeal; Operating a motor vehicle while license suspended or revoked (DWLS)

The court concluded that because a Fourth Amendment violation did not occur, the district court erred in excluding evidence from the preliminary exam and by ruling “that the evidence produced by investigatory stop and arrest would be excluded from future proceedings” as to defendant-Lucynski’s DWLS and open intoxicant charges. It further held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the prosecution’s motion for bindover on the OWI charge and by dismissing the charge. Thus, it reversed the district court’s 3/27/20 order, reversed the circuit court’s 5/6/20 order, and remanded “to the district court for reinstatement of the OWI charge and for entry of an order reflecting that the matter was bound over to the circuit court for further proceedings.” The district court excluded the evidence based on its conclusion that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. The court held that Deputy R’s “initial interaction with Lucynski did not amount to a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment.” Based on Lucynski’s statements, R’s observations, and Lucynski’s performance during the field sobriety tests, R found probable cause to arrest him for OWI. Thereafter, he “consented to his blood being drawn, and the results revealed the presence of THC in his system. In the time preceding the seizure, Lucynski’s body language was relaxed, he did not attempt to leave, and he did not demonstrate an unwillingness to answer questions.” Rather, he was entirely cooperative. Thus, the district court erred by analyzing the initial conversation between them as if the protections of the Fourth Amendment were implicated. Considering the totality of the circumstances, R “had a reasonable suspicion sufficient to warrant transforming the consensual encounter into an investigatory stop and eventually into a lawful arrest. Because the seizures were lawful under the Fourth Amendment, the district court erred by excluding the evidence produced by the investigatory stop and arrest when deciding whether probable cause existed to support the bindover and erred by suppressing the evidence in future hearings concerning the remaining misdemeanor charges.” As to its denial of the prosecution’s motion for bindover on the OWI charge, Lucynski did “not argue that probable cause did not exist to support the bindover when considering the improperly excluded evidence.” Further, upon review of the evidence presented at the preliminary exam, it was clear that probable cause existed to support that he committed the crime of OWI. Thus, the district court abused its discretion by refusing to bind him over for trial and by dismissing the OWI charge.