State v. Armstrong
Decision Date | 04 February 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 42844,42844 |
Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Adie ARMSTRONG, Appellant. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendant has been found guilty of petty theft, a misdemeanor, and appeals from the conviction. The issues are whether defendant was in fact arrested without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the arresting officer in violation of Minn.St. 629.34(1); and whether defendant consented to a search and seizure which led to a valid arrest.
On April 19, 1970, a nurse at Hennepin County General Hospital reported her purse stolen and summoned the police. As an officer arrived, unidentified bystanders shouted 'Stop him, that's the man,' indicating defendant, who was going out the door. The officer testified that he said to defendant, He directed defendant to step over to a counter and asked him if he had anything in his pockets that belonged to anyone else. The officer went on to testify:
He further testified that had defendant wanted to leave he would not have let him. Defendant emptied his pockets, revealing objects stolen from the complaining nurse's purse. Thereupon, defendant was arrested.
The trial court held that prior to the disclosure of the stolen articles, no arrest occurred, and that the officer had a right to stop defendant and interrogate him. The court further found that defendant consented to emptying his pockets without duress or coercion. While the case is a close one, we hold that there was adequate evidence to support the trial court's decision.
Under Minn.St. 629.34(1), a peace officer may make an arrest without a warrant only for a misdemeanor committed in his presence. State v. Duren, 266 Minn. 335, 123 N.W.2d 624 (1963). The distinction between detention for interrogation and arrest is a fine one. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). We have held that when police detain persons to inquire into their identity and actions, the police are acting within their rights. State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169, 159 N.W.2d 786, 791 (1968). Indeed, we have said it is the duty of police officers to investigate suspicious behavior in order to prevent crime and to apprehend offenders. State v. Valstad, 282 Minn. 301, 311, 165 N.W.2d 19, 25 (1969). Where, as here, the officer is responding to a complaint of 'purse dipping,' he confronts defendant at a time when bystanders identify him as the suspect, and observes that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. O'Neill
...the police have investigated the circumstances. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Armstrong, 292 Minn. 471, 194 N.W.2d 293 (1972); State v. Valstad, 282 Minn. 301, 165 N.W.2d 19 (1969); State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 159 N.W.2d 786 (1968). See, Cupp v.......
-
State v. Gorgol, A14-0874
...the door; their conduct further establishes that they were acting under "the color o[f] police authority." State v. Armstrong, 292 Minn. 471, 473, 194 N.W.2d 293, 294 (1972). When Gorgol opened his door, he was instructed to exit his home and speak with the officers; when he refused, they i......
-
State v. Crea
...in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973), and this court's decision in State v. Armstrong, 292 Minn. 471, 194 N.W.2d 293 (1972), justify the trial court's finding that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his basement and garage. Since the......
-
State v. Metz
...that at least one exception applies, or evidence seized without a warrant will be suppressed. See, e.g., State v. Armstrong, 292 Minn. 471, 473, 194 N.W.2d 293, 294 (1972); Krause v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 358 N.W.2d 481, 483 The plain view exception to the warrant requirement appli......