State v. Tanner, No. A08-1705 (Minn. App. 10/13/2009)

• Decision Date: 13 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. A08-1705.,A08-1705.
• Parties: State of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Carl Lee Tanner, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals

Page 1

State of Minnesota, Respondent, v.Carl Lee Tanner, Appellant.

No. A08-1705.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota.

Filed October 13, 2009.

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2008).

Appeal from the District Court, Clay County, FileNo. CR-07-2223.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Paul R. Kempainen, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN and

Brian Melton, Clay County Attorney, Moorhead, MN (for respondent)

Marie L. Wolf, Interim Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jessica Merz Godes, Assistant Public Defender, Megan Gallagher(certified student attorney) St. Paul, MN (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

LARKIN, Judge.

Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree sale of a controlled substance, which resulted from a proceeding under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4.Appellant argues that the district court erred by determining that there was probable cause for his arrest and by denying appellant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search incident to his arrest.Appellant also argues that the district court erred by failing to make findings of fact as to each element of the conviction offense.We affirm the district court's conclusions that appellant's arrest was supported by probable cause and that the search incident to his arrest was legal.But because the district court failed to make the specific findings required under rule 26.01, subd. 4, we remand.

FACTS

On October 15, 2007, Detective Schmidt of the West Fargo Police Department received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that two individuals were transporting controlled substances through the Fargo-Moorhead area.The CI reported that the night before, he had seen two individuals with a large amount of methamphetamine and a small amount of heroin and that the individuals were en route to Minot from Denver with methamphetamine in their possession.The CI also indicated that the individuals were currently headed to the Village Inn restaurant in Moorhead.

Detective Schmidt contacted Detective Larson of the Moorhead Police Department, who went to the Village Inn along with Detective Stuvland.The officers arrived at the Village Inn and observed two individuals, later identified as appellantCarl Lee Tanner and Jerry Benjamin Carroll, getting out of a car with North Dakota license plates.The individuals entered the restaurant.The officers ran the license plate and determined that the car was registered to Daisha Carroll of Minot.

Detective Larson contacted the Minot Police Department and was informed by Minot Police Detective Brown that Daisha Carroll was a known methamphetamine user.Based on the descriptions that Detective Larson provided, Detective Brown said that one of the individuals who exited the car might be Daisha Carroll's brother, Jerry Benjamin Carroll(Carroll).Detective Brown informed Detective Larson that Carroll was a known user and distributer of methamphetamine.

When Tanner and Carroll left the restaurant and returned to their vehicle, Detectives Larson and Stuvland approached the vehicle.Detective Larson approached the driver's door and informed Tanner of the reason for the police contact.Detective Larson asked Tanner to get out of the vehicle and to speak with him.Tanner complied and told Detective Larson that he and his companion were traveling from Denver, to Minot, via Fargo, where they had stopped to visit a friend.Detective Larson asked Tanner if there were any drugs in the car, and Tanner stated, "Not to my knowledge."

As Detective Larson and Tanner spoke, Carroll got out of the car.Detective Stuvland asked him to stay and speak to the officers.At this point, Moorhead Police Officers Heltemes and Asfeld arrived.Carroll appeared nervous; he fidgeted and chain-smoked, taking a few long puffs on each cigarette.And he would not look at Detective Stuvland.Detective Stuvland suspected that Carroll might be under the influence of methamphetamine.

Detective Larson eventually approached Carroll and asked him if there were any drugs in the car.Carroll denied that there were drugs in the car.Detective Larson repeated the question and indicated that a canine unit was on the way to sniff the car for drugs.At this point, Carroll admitted that there were drugs in the car.Tanner and Carroll were then secured in a squad car.The detectives searched the vehicle, found a small amount of heroin, and placed Tanner and Carroll under arrest.A subsequent search of the vehicle at an impound garage yielded 2.8 ounces of methamphetamine.

The state charged Tanner with one count of controlled-substance crime in the first degree and one count of controlled-substance crime in the fifth degree.Tanner moved to suppress the evidence against him and dismiss the charges, arguing that the evidence was obtained as the result of an illegal seizure and interrogation.The district court found that the detectives' on-the-scene investigation lent sufficient credence to the CI's tip such that the detectives could reasonably believe that Tanner and Carroll were in possession of methamphetamine.¹The district court therefore ruled that there was probable cause to arrest Tanner and that the vehicle search was a permissible search incident to arrest.The district court denied Tanner's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the vehicle search and his motion to dismiss.

But the district court suppressed the statements that Tanner made between the time that Detective Stuvland told Carroll that he could not leave and the time that Tanner was read his Miranda rights.The district court reasoned: "At the point when Detective Stuvland indicated that Mr. Carroll should not leave, it would be reasonable for both [Tanner] and Mr. Carroll to believe that they were neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter," and that a Miranda warning was required before any additional interrogation.

Tanner waived his rights to a trial and agreed to allow the district court to determine his guilt or innocence on a stipulated record, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and dismiss the complaint, pursuant to State v. Lothenbach,296 N.W.2d 854(Minn.1980).²After reviewing the record, the district court found Tanner guilty of first-degree sale of controlled substance and set forth its findings in a memorandum.This appeal follows.

DECISION

Probable Cause to Arrest and Search Incident to Arrest

Tanner argues that because the police were acting on the tip of an informant of unknown reliability and verified only easily obtainable information, the district court erred by determining that there was probable cause for his arrest.Tanner asserts that he was arrested on nothing more than mere suspicion of drug possession.Tanner contends that "his warrantless arrest was invalid and the search conducted incident to that arrest was also invalid."Tanner limits his argument to whether there was probable cause to support his arrest.He does not advance any other argument in support of his challenge to the legality of the vehicle search.Because the facts of this case are largely undisputed, the district court's ruling presents a question of law, which this court may independently review.State v. Othoudt,482 N.W.2d 218, 221(Minn.1992).

"Police officers may arrest a felony suspect without an arrest warrant in any public place . . . provided they have probable cause."State v. Walker,584 N.W.2d 763, 766(Minn.1998)(citingUnited States v. Watson,423 U.S. 411, 96 S. Ct. 820(1976))."The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed."State v. Johnson,314 N.W.2d 229, 230(Minn.1982)(quotation omitted)."Each case must be determined on its own facts and circumstances, and the facts present must justify more than mere suspicion but less than a conviction."State v. Carlson,267 N.W.2d 170, 173-74(Minn.1978).The lawfulness of an arrest is determined by an objective standard that takes into account the totality of the circumstances.State v. Perkins,582 N.W.2d 876, 878(Minn.1998).Courts

must decide each case on its own facts, guided not by any magic formula but by the standard of reasonableness.In applying this standard [they] should not be overly technical and should accept the officer's probable-cause determination if reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, would under the same circumstances make the same determination.

State v. Cox,294 Minn. 252, 256, 200 N.W.2d 305, 308(1972).

The detectives' initial investigation into Tanner's activities was prompted by the CI's tip.Police may rely on an informant's tip if the tip has sufficient indicia of reliability.In re Welfare of G.M.,560 N.W.2d 687, 691(Minn.1997).When assessing reliability, courts examine the credibility of the informant and the basis of the informant's knowledge in light of all the circumstances.Id.The fact that an informant is not anonymous enhances the informant's credibility.State v. Lindquist,295 Minn. 398, 400, 205 N.W.2d 333, 335(1973)."Recent personal observation of incriminating conduct has traditionally been the preferred basis for an informant's knowledge."State v. Wiley,366 N.W.2d 265, 269(Minn.1985).And independent corroboration of some of the CI's information lends credence to the tip.State v. McCloskey,453 N.W.2d 700, 704(Minn.1990).Police should verify more than easily ascertainable facts, such as an address, but need not verify "key" details included in the tip.CompareWalker,584 N.W.2d at 768(stating that verification of address was insufficient to support reliability of tip because the address was an easily...