Title: City of St. Paul v. Johnson
Citation: 179 N.W.2d 317
Docket Number: 41987
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: August 7, 1970

179 N.W.2d 317 (1970) CITY OF ST. PAUL, Respondent, v. Duane JOHNSON and Joseph E. Garrett, Appellants. No. 41987. Supreme Court of Minnesota. August 7, 1970. *318 Donald J. Heffernan, St. Paul, for appellants. Daniel Klas, City Atty., Thomas M. Mooney, Asst. City Atty., St. Paul, for respondent. Heard before KNUTSON, C. J., and OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN, and JAMES F. MURPHY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Appeal from a judgment of conviction for transporting a firearm in violation of the St. Paul Legislative Code, § 425.05(1).[1] Defendants appeal, contending that their arrest was illegal and that evidence used against them was the product of an unlawful search and seizure. From the record it appears that at about 9 p. m. on the evening of December 29, 1968, a police officer on duty in an unmarked police car observed defendants walking toward a grocery store. As defendants approached the entrance, the officer noticed that one defendant wore a ski mask and the other pulled a similar mask down over the lower half of his face. The officer parked in front of the store in order to observe defendants. At a pretrial hearing on a motion challenging the legality of the arrest, the officer was asked: * * * * * * * * * * * * At trial, the officer testified: Defendants left the store and walked toward their car (parked about 2½ blocks from the grocery store) while the officer followed them in his car at a distance of 60 to 70 feet. The officer watched them walk about 30 feet past their car and then left and drove around the block. When he returned to the parked vehicle, defendants were no longer in sight. At the pretrial hearing, the officer testified: At trial, he testified: * * * * * * * * * * * * About 10 minutes later, defendants were placed in a second squad car. Their car was then searched, and a loaded .38-caliber revolver was discovered underneath the rear seat. Defendants were charged with transporting a loaded firearm contrary to St. Paul Legislative Code, § 425.05(1). The trial court denied defendants' motions to suppress the seized revolver as discovered in violation of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The trial court found defendants guilty and imposed a sentence of 45 days in the workhouse. Preliminary to a discussion of the validity of defendants' arrest, it should be pointed out that it is unnecessary in this case to restate principles of law as they relate to the scope and delineations of searches of motor vehicles incident to lawful arrest. State v. LaJeunesse, 280 Minn. 381, 159 N.W.2d 261; State v. Russell, 282 Minn. 223, 164 N.W.2d 65, certiorari denied, 396 U.S. 850, 90 S. Ct. 109, 24 L. Ed. 2d 100; State v. Holmes, 273 Minn. 223, 140 N.W.2d 610; Sipera v. State, 286 Minn. 536, 175 N.W.2d 510. These authorities review controlling decisions of the United States Supreme Court which include Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 84 S. Ct. 881, 11 L. Ed. 2d 777; Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58, 87 S. Ct. 788, 17 L. Ed. 2d 730; and Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685. In the instant case, the matter to be resolved is whether the officer had probable cause for a valid arrest. Minn.St. 629.34 (1) provides: Minn.St. 629.35 provides: As stated in State v. Olson, 271 Minn. 50, 56, 135 N.W.2d 181, 185, Moreover, as expressed in State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169, 159 N.W.2d 786, 790: In the case at hand, it may fairly be said that the police officer rationally concluded that defendants had progressed sufficiently in their enterprise to justify an arrest for a felony, attempted robbery contrary to Minn.St. 609.17, subd. 1: The fact that defendants were subsequently charged with a lesser offense is of no consequence. Neither is it particularly significant that in all likelihood defendants were not guilty of the substantive crime of attempt. This court, in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264, 121 N.W.2d 327, 331, approved the following language: Here, the arresting officer could reasonably infer from all the circumstances that he had interrupted an attempted robbery. Since the arrest was based upon probable cause, the search made incident to it was lawful. Affirmed. Mr. Justice KELLY, not having been a member of this court at the time of submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [1] St. Paul Legislative Code, § 425.05(1), provided: "Firearms whose possession is not prohibited by this ordinance or by law may be transported in Saint Paul in the following manner and not otherwise: "(1) In a motor vehicle, only if the firearm is unloaded and placed in a secured container or located in the trunk of the vehicle; except all hand guns must be in a secured container and located in the trunk or if there is no trunk, in the farthest rear position of the vehicle." This language is now found in § 425.05 (A).