State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 02 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 48522.,48522. |
| Citation | 277 NW 2d 346 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Paul Irwin JOHNSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Bob G. Goldman, County Atty., Craig S. Nelson, Asst. County Atty., Albert Lea, for appellant.
Stephen R. Erickson, Albert Lea, for respondent.
Heard before ROGOSHESKE, TODD and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
The state appeals from a pretrial suppression order of the Freeborn County District Court. Defendant cross-appeals from that portion of the same order which rules certain statements admissible at trial.1 We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The facts involved in the present appeal are not in controversy.2 On October 4, 1977 at 11:39 p. m., Deputy Anton Wayne of the Freeborn County Sheriff's Department was on routine patrol on a township road near the Albert Lea Airport. He passed a gravel pit adjacent to the road and noticed a vehicle with its interior light on in the gravel pit. Deputy Wayne parked his squad car behind the vehicle in the gravel pit, at right angles to it. The headlights of the police car partially illuminated the open trunk of the other vehicle. Prior to exiting his car, Deputy Wayne notified the police dispatcher of his location and told the dispatcher that he could not read the license plate number on the rear of the other vehicle.
Deputy Wayne left his patrol car and proceeded to the front of the vehicle where he found two men. He noticed that the vehicle was stuck in the gravel pit. He determined that the two men were defendant, Paul Irwin Johnson, the owner and driver of the vehicle, and Doyle Almquist. The two men told Deputy Wayne that they became stuck while chasing a jackrabbit with the vehicle.
The two men asked Deputy Wayne to help them pull the car out of the sand. He refused, but offered to call a wrecker if the men desired. The two refused the offer and Deputy Wayne started back to his car.
Prior to his departure, Deputy Wayne walked to the rear of the Johnson vehicle to check for the license plate number. He did not find a rear license plate; but through the illumination of the patrol car's headlights Deputy Wayne observed three fresh green plants which he believed to be marijuana. Deputy Wayne then summoned defendant to the rear of the car and informed him that he had found marijuana. Defendant responded, "No, that's zinnias." Deputy Wayne countered, "No, it's marijuana." When defendant then asked if he just couldn't have a break, Deputy Wayne responded, "No, that's marijuana you got in your trunk."
At this point Deputy Wayne placed defendant under arrest and seized a brown paper bag from the trunk. He immediately opened the bag and observed a large plastic bag containing smaller plastic bags within. The smaller bags contained a green vegetable substance, later found to be marijuana. Doyle Almquist was called to the rear of the vehicle; both men were searched and defendant was handcuffed.
Defendant asked to speak to Deputy Wayne, who placed him in the rear of the squad car. Almquist remained illuminated by the headlights of the police patrol car. After a Miranda card was read to defendant, he asked Deputy Wayne for a break because he feared loss of his new job. Deputy Wayne reiterated that defendant was under arrest.
After this conversation, Almquist was placed in the patrol car. Deputy Wayne then radioed for Deputy Sheriff Nelson and for a tow truck. Following Deputy Nelson's arrival, Almquist was placed in Nelson's squad car. Deputy Wayne took possession of the three plants and the brown bag. He then searched the interior of the vehicle and obtained the keys to the locked glove compartment from defendant. In the glove compartment he found two baggies containing a green leafy substance and a pill bottle containing two small marijuana roaches.
Doyle Almquist was transported to his residence; defendant was taken to the county jail and the car was towed away. At the jail, defendant was once again advised of his Miranda rights and declined further comment.
The trial court ruled that the seizure of the three fresh plants was valid as a plain view seizure; it ordered suppression of the brown bag and contents of the glove compartment on the ground that a warrant should have been obtained. The statements made before and after the Miranda warnings were ruled admissible.
The issues raised by this appeal are:
(1) Was the warrantless search of the automobile and the seizure of the brown bag and contents of the glove compartment illegal when the automobile was immobilized in a gravel pit?
(2) Were the statements by the defendant prior to receiving Miranda warnings admissible when they were made following statements by a deputy sheriff who suspected that defendant had committed a crime?
(3) Were the statements made by defendant after receiving Miranda warnings inadmissible?
Defendant does not dispute that the seizure of the freshly picked plants from the trunk of his car was lawful under the "plain view doctrine." Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971).3 The trial court, however, rejected the state's arguments concerning seizure of the marijuana found in the trunk and the glove compartment of defendant's car without a search warrant, reasoning that there were no exceptions which would permit such a warrantless search of the remainder of the car. We disagree.
At the time Deputy Wayne observed the marijuana plants in defendant's trunk, he called defendant back to the rear of the vehicle to discuss the situation. After defendant made the statements which are the subject of the second part of this opinion, he was placed under arrest by Deputy Wayne, who simultaneously seized the brown paper bag containing marijuana.
In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search of the person and the area within his immediate control is valid incident to a lawful arrest. The search is limited, however, to a search for weapons and destructible evidence. 395 U.S. at 762, 89 S.Ct. at 2040, 23 L.Ed.2d at 694. The facts of the present case clearly justified the seizure of the bag as part of a search incident to defendant's arrest. In addition, there are other reasons for not suppressing this evidence.
The deputy's conduct in seizing the bag and the contents of the glove compartment can be justified under either of two well-established exceptions to the warrant requirement: (1) The "instrumentality" theory; or (2) the so-called automobile exception. The instrumentality theory is appropriate because defendant was transporting contraband in his automobile. See State v. Thompson, 285 Minn. 529, 173 N.W.2d 459 (1970); State v. Thiel, 299 Minn. 179, 217 N.W.2d 499 (1974); 7 Minnesota Practice, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 144.
Equally appropriate is the automobile exception. The validity of warrantless automobile searches depends on the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances.
As long ago as Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925), the United States Supreme Court recognized that automobile searches could constitutionally be treated differently from other searches. Warrantless searches of automobiles may be justified in circumstances where searches of homes or offices may not. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). The original justification for allowing a warrantless search of an automobile on probable cause is that the inherent mobility of vehicles creates exigencies which make it impractical to obtain a warrant before the search is conducted.
Probable cause to search exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent man to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 51 S.Ct. 240, 75 L.Ed. 629 (1931). In the case before us after Deputy Wayne observed the marijuana plants in the trunk of defendant's car, the facts were sufficient for him to reasonably believe that there might be additional marijuana located in other areas of defendant's car.
This holding finds support in numerous decisions. For example, in Commonwealth v. Miller, 366 Mass. 387, 318 N.E.2d 909 (1974), the operator of a van which had been stopped for a registration check alighted from the van, at which time the officer noticed a clear plastic packet containing a green substance which the officer believe to be marijuana protruding from the operator's pocket. Evidence obtained in the subsequent search of the van was ordered suppressed by the trial judge. The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial