State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 06 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-1415 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Jeremia Michael Roberts, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).
Reversed in part and remanded
Rice County District Court
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
John Fossum, Rice County Attorney, Terence Swihart, Assistant County Attorney, Faribault, Minnesota (for respondent)
Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota; and
Haley L. Waller Pitts, Fredrickson & Byron, P.A., Special Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Florey, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the van he was driving and, derivatively, argues that the admissible evidence is insufficient to support his unlawful-possession-of-a-firearm conviction. We reverse in part and remand.
Appellant Jeremia Michael Roberts was arrested for providing a false name to police after a police chief responded to a report of a suspicious van. After the chief located and stopped the van, a shotgun was found in the van, and appellant was charged with unlawful possession of that firearm. Appellant moved to suppress evidence of the firearm, arguing that the evidence resulted from an illegal search of the van.
At a contested omnibus hearing, the chief testified that, at 11:30 a.m. on October 28, 2016, he received a report of a suspicious van parked in a field. The chief knew that the field "is commonly where people park to drink, [and] dispose of stolen property." When the chief approached the area, the van began to move away. Appellant was driving. The chief knew the owners of the van and knew that they had no sons, so he found it suspicious that a male was driving the van. The chief initiated a traffic stop, and asked for appellant's driver's license and insurance information. Appellant said that he did not have a valid license, and wrote down a name and date of birth for Z.F.R. The chief requested that dispatch check the driver's-license status corresponding to that name. Dispatch reported that Z.F.R. had a valid license.
The chief testified that, because the van had dark tinted windows, he did not initially observe anyone else in the van. But a woman appeared from under a blanket in the center of the van and began looking for proof of insurance. The woman told the chief that four people were in the van. The chief believed people were hiding under the blankets, so he made all four occupants get out of the van. The chief then requested backup.
The chief testified that he recognized the female passenger as the daughter of the van's owners. He attempted to identify the two males who had been in the back of the van. One of the male passengers then took off running. The chief then handcuffed appellant and placed him on the ground in the grassy ditch area "for safety." The chief testified that he was outnumbered and he The female sat on the ground, and the chief placed the remaining male passenger in the squad car. The chief testified that the female could have accessed the van during this time, but she neither did so nor made any attempt to do so.
When another officer arrived, the chief undertook what he described as "a full-on search" of appellant, including a search of his pockets. A wallet was removed from appellant's pocket. It contained a birth certificate for Jeremia Roberts, whom appellant identified as his brother. The chief was eventually able to identify appellant as Jeremia Roberts after he consulted computer records from his squad car. After appellant had been searched, the assisting officer began searching the van.
The assisting officer testified at the omnibus hearing that he had responded to a request for assistance on a suspicious-vehicle call. He was informed that someone had fled from the vehicle. Upon arriving, this officer spoke to the chief who "told [the officer] what he had thus far, who the driver was, what had happened."1 The chief The assisting officer testified that, after aiding in the search of appellant, he walked around the van and could see into it by looking through the glass. Despite the passenger-side sliding door being open, the officer opened the driver-side sliding door and saw blankets and pillows in the back of the van. The assisting officer moved a blanket in the van and found a shotgun. He testified that he moved the blanket because "the scene was quite chaotic" and He testified that the female passenger told him the gun belonged to appellant. He acknowledged that the sequence of events was: "arrive on scene, find all the people are out of the vehicle, pat down [appellant], walk over, open the door, search the vehicle."
Appellant argued to the district court that the assisting officer's warrantless search of the van did not fall under any exception to the warrant requirement. The state argued that the officer performed a constitutional "protective sweep" of the vehicle, based on a reasonable suspicion that other people could be hiding in the van. The district court denied appellant's suppression motion.
The district court concluded that the search of the van was a legitimate protective sweep, because the female had access to the van when she was outside of it, and because the chief did not personally check the van to determine if anyone else remained hiding in it. Appellant moved the district court to reconsider its decision, arguing the protective-sweep exception to the warrant requirement is limited to a "cursory visual inspection of those places in which a person might be hiding" and must be incident to an arrest. Appellant argued he was not under arrest at the time of the search and the assisting officer did not reasonably suspect someone was hiding in the van. The district court declined to reconsider.
The case was tried to a jury. At trial, S.D., the female passenger, testified that she had been using her parents' van with their permission. She testified that on the The chief and the assisting officer also testified, and the squad-car video from the chief's vehicle was admitted into evidence and played for the jury. The squad-car video lasts 43 minutes and clearly depicts the chief's stop of and approach to the vehicle, the exit of all persons from the vehicle, the flight of one of the males from the scene, the search of appellant, and the search of the vehicle. The jury found appellant guilty of both unlawfully possessing a firearm and providing false information to law enforcement.
This appeal followed.2
Appellant argues that the district court erred in concluding that police were entitled to search the van of which he had been the driver as part of a protective sweep, because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle and appellant was not under arrest at the time of the search. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction.
We first consider whether the assisting officer's search of the van fell within an exception to the warrant requirement.3 "[W]hen reviewing a pre-trial order suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the trial court's decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed." State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn. 1992). Where the facts are in dispute, an appellate court reviews the district court's findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. State v. Ortega, 770 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009).
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 10. Evidence seized in violation of the United States or Minnesota Constitutions must be suppressed. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968); State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011). A search or seizure that is conducted without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable. State v. Lugo, 887 N.W.2d 476, 486 (Minn. 2016). Exceptions to the warrant requirement "are based on particular exigencies of a situation and must be 'jealously and carefully drawn.'" State v. Robb, 605 N.W.2d 96, 100 (Minn. 2000) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2032 (1971)). The burden is on the state to demonstrate an exception to the warrant requirement. Id.
The state argues that Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 330, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 1096 (1990), and State v. Bergerson, 671 N.W.2d 197, 203 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 2004), justify the search of the van in this case.
In Buie, the Supreme Court considered the permissibility and limits of a protective sweep. 494 U.S. at 330, 110 S. Ct. at 1096. The Supreme Court began its analysis by stating that police with an arrest warrant and probable cause to believe the person covered by the arrest warrant is in a home have authority to search for the person in any room in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial