State v Ellis, 2011,WL 891020, Minn. App., March 15, 2011(NO. A10-583)(Unpublished Decision) – Search and Seizure
Defendant challenged his conviction claims that the arresting officer did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify defendant’s seizure and subsequent conviction as a prohibited person in violation of a firearm. The Court determined that the officer’s stop and search of the defendant was invalid because the officer could not point to the articulable facts that supported the possibility of defendant being involved in a criminal activity. The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s conviction.
The defendant was convicted of a possession of a firearm by an ineligible person and appealed the trial court’s decision not to suppress evidence gained by his search and seizure by law enforcement.
A police officer testified that he observed defendant approximately 40 minutes after a burglary had been reported in the area. Officer testified that the burglary suspect was a black male wearing dark clothing and carrying a gun, who had fled southward. The officer testified that he saw the defendant, a black male, walking east, about 6 or 7 blocks from the burglary location. Defendant was wearing a dark, hooded sweatshirt and dark colored jeans. The officer further testified that he saw defendant stop briefly next to a pickup truck and glance in its window. Defendant reportedly than glanced back at the officer’s squad car. The officer testified that after the defendant observed his squad car, he continued walking in the same direction as before. The officer pulled up next to defendant and stopped him. The officer had the defendant raise his hands and did a pat down search, which revealed a loaded hand gun in defendant’s waist band. Defendant further had an outstanding felony warrant on a parole violation. Defendant was arrested.
Defendant requested that the evidence against him be suppressed, as a result of an unlawful stop.
Investigative stop and seizures of a person are subject to prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures set forth in United States and Minnesota Constitution. To justify an investigative stop, an officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. Facts supporting a stop are those that, by their nature, quality, repetition, or pattern are so unusual and suspicious that they support at least one inference of the possibility of criminal activity.
In determining the validity of a stop conducted near a recent crime scene, courts consider information relating to (1) the particularity of the description of the offender or the vehicle in which he fled; (2) the size of the area in which the offender might be found, as indicated by such facts as the elapsed time since the crime occurred; (3) the number of persons about in that area; (4) the known or probable direction of the offender’s flight; (5) observed activity by the particular person stopped; and (6) knowledge or suspicion that the person or vehicle stopped has been involved in other criminality of the type presently under investigation.
In concluding that the defendant’s stop was unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals noted that the defendant testified that while he was wearing a sweatshirt on a relatively warm day, it had been cold and rainy in the morning and had become sunny in the afternoon, when he was stopped. The defendant’s stop occurred 40 minutes after the reported burglary and 6 or 7 blocks from that location. While defendant’s general appearance is a black male wearing dark clothing fits that of the burglary suspect it does not distinguish the defendant in an urban area during day light hours. The Court noted that the defendant’s general location and the time of the stop did not contribute to a reasonable suspicion that he committed the burglary. Finally, the defendant’s act of glancing into a truck window and then at the officer’s squad car does not provide a reasonable suspicion in either the burglary or vehicle theft.
The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court decision and suppressed the evidence against the defendant.
——————————————————————————————————-
State v. Riesgraf, 2011 WL __________, Minn. App. March 15, 2011 (NO. A10-985)(Unpublished Decision) – Circumstantial Evidence of Driving
Defendant challenged his DUI conviction claiming the evidence was insufficient because the state failed to prove he was driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The Court determined that because there was no direct evidence that defendant was driving the vehicle while under the influence and any rational inferences from circumstantial evidence were insufficient to satisfy the state’s burden of proof, the Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s DUI conviction.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the state provided evidence that the defendant drove his vehicle to a Walmart store and admitted that he drank a 1oz. bottle of rum. Evidence also demonstrated that the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication when questioned by a police officer and subsequently failed field sobriety tests. Approximately 1-1/2 hours after his arrest, defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of .20. The Court of Appeals noted the evidence offered by the state did not include a temporal link between defendant’s driving and his being under the influence of alcohol, and the circumstantial evidence of inebriation was not inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt.
The Court of Appeals noted that the jury heard no evidence to establish at what time defendant drove to the Walmart store, how long he was in the store, or whether he consumed alcohol after driving to Walmart. Further, the vehicle’s keys were not in defendant’s possession when he was approached by police. Given the fact that each element of an offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof.
——————————————————————————————————-
State v. Dobel, ___N.W. 2d ___, 2010 WL 4721513, Minn. App. November 23, 2010 (NO. A10-242) – Motor Vehicle Stop
Failure to signal lane change made necessary because of parked emergency vehicle, was a legitimate basis to stop defendant’s vehicle.
Defendant, while driving on a highway, was approaching a parked emergency vehicle. Minnesota Statutes required a driver to change lanes to avoid a stopped emergency vehicle. Defendant did not signal his lane change and was stopped by a sheriff’s deputy and ultimately charged with DUI-Test Refusal and 5th Degree Controlled Substance.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the stop of the motor vehicle, stating: “an officer’s observation of a traffic violation, ‘however insignificant,’ provides an officer with an objective basis for conducting a stop.” Further, while the emergency vehicle statute requires a motorist to change lanes, that requirement is consistent with the separate statutory requirement that a motorist change lanes only after giving the appropriate signal.
——————————————————————————————————-
Innocent Owner Defense
Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 766 NW 2d 431 (Minn. 2009) (No. A07-2023).
Wife was charged with and pled guilty to second degree DUI. At the time of her arrest she was driving a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe that she owned jointly with her husband. Due to the arrest and conviction, forfeiture proceedings were initiated by the State. Husband objected to the forfeiture claiming to be an innocent owner. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that while husband may be an innocent owner, wife was not. Therefore, the “innocent owner” defense did not apply and the vehicle was forfeitable.