State v. Allinder, No. A08-0068 (Minn. App. 2/10/2009)
| Decision Date | 10 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A08-0068,A08-0068 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Courtney James Allinder, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Minnesota |
Appeal from the District Court, Kandiyohi County, File No. 34-CR-06-2469.
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Kristi Nielsen, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN and Boyd Beccue, Kandiyohi County Attorney, Willmar, MN (for respondent)
Todd V. Peterson, St. Cloud, MN (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Courtney James Allinder challenges his convictions and sentence, contending that the warrantless searches of his vehicle and backpack were illegal and consequently, the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the searches. Because we conclude that the searches of appellant's vehicle and backpack were lawful pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, we affirm.
On December 18, 2006, appellant was charged with fifth-degree controlled substance offense for possessing 817 grams or more of marijuana in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subds. 2(1) and 3(a) (2006), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.092 (2006). At his pretrial omnibus hearing, appellant argued that the warrantless searches of his vehicle and backpack were illegal and consequently, the evidence obtained from the searches—marijuana and drug paraphernalia—should be suppressed. The district court denied appellant's motion to suppress, concluding that although appellant did not consent to the searches, (1) appellant's vehicle was lawfully stopped; (2) the searches of appellant's vehicle and backpack were incident to a lawful arrest; and (3) the warrantless search of appellant's vehicle was lawful pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a stipulated facts trial. After the district court found appellant guilty of both counts, appellant brought this appeal, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
"When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence." State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999). We review de novo whether a search or seizure is justified by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484, 487 (Minn. 2005). And we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. Id.
Before examining the search and seizure of the contraband, we must analyze the stop that led to its discovery. In re Welfare G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Minn. 1995); State v. Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn. 1983). "A brief investigatory stop requires only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, rather than probable cause." State v. Martinson, 581 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Minn. 1998) (citations omitted). And in determining whether the stop was lawful, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances. Engwer v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 383 N.W.2d 418, 419 (Minn. App. 1986).
Before stopping the vehicle driven by appellant, a Kandiyohi County sheriff's deputy determined by radar that the vehicle was traveling in excess of the speed limit and saw that the vehicle was missing its front license plate. Because the deputy observed two violations of Minnesota traffic laws, we conclude that there was a valid, objective basis for stopping appellant's vehicle, and that the stop was lawfully based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
As the deputy approached the passenger side of the vehicle, he noticed an "extremely strong pungent odor of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle's interior." The deputy also noticed that appellant's eyes appeared "a little glazed over and had some marked reddening, which is common with cannabis use." The deputy asked appellant what was causing the odor and how much marijuana was in the vehicle. Appellant admitted that he had smoked marijuana while driving and that he had a marijuana pipe in his pocket. The deputy then asked appellant to exit the vehicle and conducted a patdown search of appellant's person and removed a marijuana pipe from his jacket pocket. The record indicates that the bowl of the pipe contained a small amount of burnt marijuana and that after the patdown search the deputy placed appellant in the back seat of his squad car.
The deputy conducted a warrantless search of the vehicle. He did not discover any contraband around the driver's seat and area, but noticed a backpack behind the front right passenger seat that was within the driver's reach. The deputy stated that while searching the vehicle he smelled unburned, fresh marijuana in the vehicle. The deputy picked up the backpack, squeezed it, and a puff of air escaped causing him to notice a strong odor of unburned, fresh marijuana emanating from within the backpack. He also noticed that the backpack was soft and that when he manipulated it, he felt something inside of it. After making these initial observations of the backpack, the deputy opened a small compartment on its front side. In the creases of the compartment he saw green plant-like material that appeared to be marijuana. The deputy then opened the larger compartment of the backpack and discovered three plastic bags, two of which were vacuum sealed, that appeared to contain a large quantity of marijuana. A pair of scissors and a digital scale were also found in the backpack. The deputy placed the backpack on the hood of his squad car, informed appellant that he was under arrest, and handcuffed him.
The Supreme Court developed the automobile exception to the warrant requirement based on the exigent character of evidence in a vehicle and a person's reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle. California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 392-94, 105 S. Ct. 2066, 2070-71 (1985), cited in State v. Bauman, 586 N.W.2d 416, 422 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 1999). An officer has authority to search a vehicle without a warrant under the automobile exception if that officer has probable cause to believe the search will produce evidence of a crime or contraband. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467, 119 S. Ct. 2013, 2014 (1999) (); California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580-81, 111 S. Ct. 1982, 1991 (1991) (); State v. Bigelow, 451 N.W.2d 311, 311 (Minn. 1990) (); State v. Nace, 404 N.W.2d 357, 361 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. June 25, 1987) (ruling that under the automobile exception, due to a lower expectation of privacy in vehicle, an officer needs only probable cause to believe a vehicle contains contraband in order to search).
Probable cause is defined as "some showing by evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show the existence of the facts alleged." State v. Lopez, 631 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Minn. App. 2001) (quoting State v. Pederson-Maxwell, 619 N.W.2d 777, 781 (Minn. App. 2000)). Generally, an officer will rely on a combination of discrete facts to determine probable cause and whether these facts are sufficient must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248-50 (Minn. 2007) (). The detection of illicit odors alone by trained police officers constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime. State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 205 N.W.2d 509 (1973); State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn. App. 1984) (citing City of St. Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104, 244 N.W.2d 43 (1976)).
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in State v. Bigelow that
(a) the lawful discovery of drugs or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial