State v. Wicklund
| Decision Date | 09 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 43570,43570 |
| Citation | 205 N.W.2d 509,295 Minn. 403 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Kevin WICKLUND, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Elton A. Kuderer, County Atty., David McKenna, Asst. County Atty., Fairmont, for appellant.
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Doris O. Huspeni, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Considered en banc.
This is an appeal by the state pursuant to Minn.St. 632.11, subd. 1(3), from the district court's order suppressing certain evidence necessary to continue prosecution of defendant for possession of a small amount of marijuana in violation of Minn.St. 152.09, subd. 1(2). The issue is whether the arresting officers violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in searching him and seizing this evidence. Because the district court had not made any findings of fact, we were unable to decide this issue and we therefore remanded the case for findings. 1 After considering these findings, we conclude that the district court erred in suppressing the evidence and we reverse.
On September 5, 1971, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Officers Larry Willard and Glenn Olson of the Fairmont Police Department while on routine patrol observed a slowly moving automobile containing three young people in the front seat and one in the back. Because one of the passengers in the front seat, a female, appeared to be either 'slouched down' or very young, the officers, thinking that there might be a curfew violation, began to follow the automobile. As they began following, they observed that in addition to being driven slowly the automobile was being driven somewhat erratically. Before turning on their red beacon to signal the driver to stop, they shined their spotlights on the automobile and immediately observed defendant, seated alone in the back seat, making furtive motions, as though he were attempting to hide something.
As the officers walked towards the stopped automobile, Willard to the left door and Olson to the right, the driver rolled down his window and Officer Willard immediately detected an odor emanating from the vehicle which he concluded on the basis of his training and experience was the odor of burned marijuana. Contemporaneously, Officer Olson, on the other side, shined his flashlight into the back seat, observed a cardboard beer case, opened the door and, as he did so, also smalled an odor which he concluded on the basis of his training and experience was the odor of burned marijuana. Immediately Olson ordered defendant to keep his hands raised and then proceeded to search him, finding first a small plastic bag containing marijuana and later other evidence including cigarette papers and a homemade pipe which smelled of burned marijuana.
On these facts we have no difficulty in concluding that the officers did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The officers had a right to stop the automobile in order to investigate the possible curfew violation and the cause of the slow, erratic driving. State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490, 198 N.W.2d 136 (1972); State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 159 N.W.2d 786 (1968). Of course, when they first stopped the automobile they did not have probable cause to search. State v. Gannaway, 291...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hilber, 2
...view in the automobile ashtray and described the occupants as appearing to be under the influence of marijuana); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 205 N.W.2d 509 (1973) (odor of burned marijuana along with furtive movement furnished probable cause); Ford v. State, 37 Md.App. 373, 377 A.2d 5......
-
State v. Perry, S–14–506
...note 33.35 See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28–416(13) (Supp.2015).36 State v. Ortega, 749 N.W.2d 851 (Minn.App.2008).37 See State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 205 N.W.2d 509 (1973).38 State v. Ortega, supra note 36, 749 N.W.2d at 854.39 Id.40 See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, A Treatise on the ......
-
City of St. Paul v. Vaughn
...could be inferred.5 Adherence to the rule, although not always by name, has been insisted on by this court. State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 205 N.W.2d 509 (1973); State v. Valstad, 282 Minn. 301, 165 N.W.2d 19 (1969); State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 159 N.W.2d 786 (1968).6 There is nothing ......
-
Mayfield v. Commonwealth
...vehicle provides probable cause for the search of the vehicle’s occupants." Doren , 654 N.W.2d at 142 (citing State v. Wicklund , 295 Minn. 403, 405, 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (1973) ).The Wicklund Court determined that the officers in the case were "clearly justified" in searching the defendant ......