Title: State v. Rak

State: minnesota

Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court

Document:

193 N.W.2d 603 (1971) STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tony Michael RAK, Appellant. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Lawrence BERG, Appellant. Nos. 42164, 42209. Supreme Court of Minnesota. December 30, 1971. C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Roberta K. Levy and Doris O. Huspeni, Asst. Public Defenders, Minneapolis, for Rak. C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Earl P. Gray and Roberta K. Levy, Asst. Public Defenders, Minneapolis, for Berg. Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, Co. Atty., Henry W. McCarr and David G. Roston, Asst. Co. Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON, and KELLY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appeals by defendants Tony M. Rak and Lawrence Berg from convictions of receiving and concealing stolen property contrary to Minn.St. 609.53; 609.52, subd. 3(2); and 609.05. Although the defendants were tried jointly, their appeals were presented separately. Since the appeals raise identical issues arising out of the same incident, we have consolidated them for purposes of our review. Both defendants contend that inculpatory evidence was obtained during an unconstitutional search and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain their convictions. We disagree and affirm. On Christmas Day 1968, at 11:30 p. m., Rak's car, driven by Berg, with Rak and a Frank Henders as passengers, struck the rear end of another automobile at an icy intersection at Second Avenue and Forty-sixth Street in Minneapolis. *604 While Rak and Berg talked to the driver of the other automobile, on an apparent signal from one of them, Henders drove off in Rak's damaged car. A short time later, police discovered what was later determined to be Rak's car about 5 blocks from the accident scene. The car was parked at an angle to, and about 2 feet from, the curb. Footprints in the snow led away from the car. In an attempt to find the driver of the vehicle, police followed the footprints until they disappeared. They then looked through the windows and observed that the ignition keys were still in the car and that a portable TV, letters with a Blaisdell address, a custom slip with a West Calhoun Boulevard address, and several other articles were strewn about inside. After a police radio check revealed that a portable TV and other personal property had probably just been stolen from the Blaisdell address, the police, without a search warrant, entered the car to seize and inventory the property. Defendants argue that there was no urgent need to search the automobile and that police should have first obtained a search warrant. The United States Supreme Court in Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 48, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 1979, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419, 426 (1970) held valid a warrantless search of an automobile and said: The court went on to say (399 U.S. 51, 90 S. Ct. 1981, 26 L.Ed.2d 428): The facts and circumstances known to the police at the time of the search in the present case fit comfortably within these limits. Although defendants offered an explanation of their actions, the credibility of their testimony and the resolution of conflicting evidence was properly left to the jury. Our separate review of the trial record satisfies us that there is ample, if not compelling, evidentiary support for the jury's guilty verdicts. State v. Darrow, 287 Minn. 230, 177 N.W.2d 778 (1970); State v. O'Donnell, 280 Minn. 213, 158 N.W.2d 699 (1968). Affirmed.