Opinion ID: 1740991
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Terry Search Exception

Text: The state also argues that another exception to the warrant requirement is applicable in this casethe Terry search exception. We have summarized the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) as follows: even in the absence of probable cause, the police may stop and frisk a person when (1) they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect might be engaged in criminal activity and (2) the officer reasonably believes the suspect might be armed and dangerous. State v. Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d 840, 843 (1992) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868), aff'd, 508 U.S. 366, 113 S.Ct. 2130, 124 L.Ed.2d 334 (1993). A Terry stop permits an officer who suspects that an individual is engaged in illegal activity and also believes that a suspect may be armed and dangerous to frisk the suspect in order to reduce concerns that the suspect poses a danger to officer safety. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without fear of violence   .). In Minnesota, we have held that the principles and framework of Terry [apply when] evaluating the reasonableness of [searches and] seizures during traffic stops even when a minor law has been violated. State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn.2004). Specifically, we have said that an officer may conduct a protective search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, if the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity and the officer possesses a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon. State v. Waddell, 655 N.W.2d 803, 809-10 (Minn.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Twenty years earlier, in Michigan v. Long , the Supreme Court held that: [T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868). We previously indicated in Askerooth that a two-step inquiry is appropriate when evaluating the reasonableness of a traffic stop. First, was the stop justified at its inception? Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 364. Second, were the actions of the police reasonably related to and justified by the circumstances that gave rise to the stop in the first place? Id. Related to the second inquiry, we have recognized that Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution requires that each incremental intrusion during a traffic stop be tied to and justified by one of the following: (1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 365; see also State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125, 135 (Minn.2002) (Expansion of the scope of the stop to include investigation of other suspected illegal activity is permissible under the Fourth Amendment only if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of such other illegal activity.). Here, it is undisputed that the officers were justified in stopping Flowers for a license-plate light violation. Thus, our focus is on the second step of the inquiry. Under the Minnesota Constitution, a police officer may not conduct a Terry search solely because an individual is driving a vehicle that does not have a functional license-plate light. See Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 363. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the expansion of the stop's scope was justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegal activity. We consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether reasonable, articulable suspicion exists. State v. Martinson, 581 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Minn.1998). And we have noted that, by virtue of the special training they receive, police officers articulating a reasonable suspicion may make inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 369. The district court concluded that the officers reasonably suspected illegal activity and reasonably feared for their safety because Flowers made suspicious movements and did not comply with attempts to pull him over. We agree that Flowers' movements in the vehicle, which lasted for approximately 45 seconds, gave the officers a reasonable suspicion that Flowers may have been involved in some type of criminal activity and that he might have been armed and dangerous. [13] Here, Flowers' movements in the vehicle gave the officers more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch.' See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. We therefore conclude that the officers had reasonable suspicion of some form of illegal activity and that Flowers might be armed and dangerous. Having reached the conclusion that the police officers had a basis for conducting a Terry search, we must address a related inquirydid the officers' actions exceed the permissible scope of a Terry search? We have said that to be reasonable, any intrusion in a routine traffic stop must be supported by an objective and fair balancing of the government's need to search or seize and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d at 488 (internal quotations omitted). We also note that the state has the burden to demonstrate that the Terry search was sufficiently limited in scope and duration. See Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 365 (noting that the state has the burden to show that a seizure was sufficiently limited); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (It is the State's burden to demonstrate that the seizure it seeks to justify on the basis of a reasonable suspicion was sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an investigative seizure.). We have said that when the police have articulated a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that a suspect may be armed and dangerous, the police may conduct a carefully limited frisk for weapons. Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d at 846 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has similarly indicated that: [W]here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous    [the officer] is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (emphasis added). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said that, when determining whether the police have exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop, courts should consider a number of factors, including: (1) the number of officers and police cars involved; (2) the nature of the crime and whether there is reason to believe the suspect might be armed; (3) the strength of the officers' articulable, objective suspicions; (4) the erratic behavior of or suspicious movements by the persons under observation; and (5) the need for immediate action by the officers and lack of opportunity for them to have made the stop in less threatening circumstances. United States v. Raino, 980 F.2d 1148, 1149-50 (8th Cir.1992). Further, we have said that an officer's protective search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle must be appropriately limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden. Waddell, 655 N.W.2d at 810; see also Long, 463 U.S. at 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469 ([T]he search of the passenger compartment of an automobile [must be] limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden   .). Based on the foregoing general principles, we conclude that the officers did not carefully and appropriately limit their response to the facts and circumstances of this case. We first note that when the officers initiated the stop, the only offense they knew Flowers had committed was driving a vehicle without a rear license-plate light. [14] The officers observed Flowers move around the passenger compartment of the vehicle and testified that they had reason to believe that he was armed, but they did not specifically observe any weapon or contraband. In short, while the officers had suspicions, the strength of their suspicions was not great. [15] After Flowers pulled over to the curb and stopped after having driven slowly through the alley, there were at least three squad cars on the scene. The officers ordered Flowers out of the vehicle at gunpoint, told him to walk backward toward the squad car, and ordered him to lie flat on his stomach with his arms and legs spread. The officers then handcuffed Flowers' hands behind his back. While Flowers was still lying on the pavement, one officer conducted a 35-second search of Flowers. This search did not uncover any weapons or contraband. Flowers was then confined to the back seat of a squad car. [16] As Flowers was handcuffed and confined to the back seat of the squad car, the officers searched the vehicle. [17] Presumably, this search was motivated by concerns about officer safety and was based on the officers' belief that Flowers was dangerous and may [have] gain[ed] immediate control of a weapon. Waddell, 655 N.W.2d at 810. An officer entered the vehicle and searched it for 30 seconds. This was not, as the dissent suggests, a brief or cursory search. Rather, the videotape indicates that the officer inspected both the front and back seats and also searched under the seats. This search of the vehicle failed to reveal any weapons. At this point, as the officers' testimony indicates, the officers believed [t]he situation was under control, and they turned off the video camera. Having satisfied their reasonable fears about the possibility that Flowers might have immediate access to a weapon and having concluded that the situation was under control, the officers' focus changed to illegal drugs. Specifically, the officers called a drug-sniffing dog to the scene to search the vehicle for odors of drugs. This search failed to reveal any contraband hidden in the vehicle. [18] Even if we were to assume that all of the actions taken by the officers to this point were permissible, we conclude that the officers impermissibly exceeded the scope of a Terry stop whenafter their search of Flowers, their search of the vehicle, and the dog-sniff search of the vehiclethe officers returned to the vehicle and conducted another search which lasted for an unknown period of time. As a general rule, we note that once a Terry search has determined that the suspect is not armed, the police may not without probable cause once again search the suspect. 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.6(b), at 663 (4th ed.2004) (footnote omitted). We have already concluded, in our discussion of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, that the police did not have probable cause to search the vehicle in this case. But the state also argues that this search was justified based on the same reasonable suspicion that the officers had when they initially searched the vehicle. We are not persuaded by the state's argument. The reasonable suspicions the officers had when they searched Flowers and the vehicle had dissipated, and without more, the officers could not conduct another search of the vehicle based on the same suspicions. There is support for this conclusion in our case law. In State v. Payne , we recognized that `[i]f by investigation or happenstance the quantum of evidence needed to justify a forcible stop has dissipated   , then it is not permissible to frisk.' 406 N.W.2d 511, 513 (Minn.1987) (quoting 3 Wayne LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(a), at 502 (1987)). In Payne, we concluded that the officer's reasonable suspicion had not dissipated because the officer had simply called in the names of the men and apparently learned that there were no warrants known to be outstanding. Id. at 514. Moreover, we suggested that the officer's suspicions might reasonably have increased between the time of the stop and the time he initiated the frisk because during that interval an additional officer appeared at the scene and said that his tracking dog had led him from the scene of the crime to that location. See id. LaFave provides additional support for our conclusion. Although LaFave acknowledges that the police are not necessarily limited to one search based on a reasonable articulable suspicion, the only exception to this general rule that he acknowledges comes from Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). 4 LaFave, supra, § 9.6(a), at 640-41 (4th ed.2004). In Balentine, an officer who was working alone stopped a person walking briskly away from the scene of a crime. 71 S.W.3d at 767. The officer conducted a Terry search of the person, but did not find any weapons. Id. After the initial search, the officer asked the suspect a series of questions and received contradictory answers. Id. Based on the suspect's contradictory answers, the officer conducted a second frisk of the person and found a bullet (which was later used to link the suspect to the crime). Id. at 768. The Texas court ruled that the suspect's contradictory answers gave the officer heightened suspicions, which justified the second frisk. Id. at 769-70. There are no circumstances in this case like those that were present in Payne or Balentine. [19] The officers had done far more than call in with Flowers' name they had searched him, searched his vehicle, and conducted a dog-sniff search of the vehicle for narcotics. And there is nothing in the record, such as another officer arriving at the scene and reporting additional facts or increasingly suspicious behavior, that indicates that the officers' suspicions of illegal activity had actually increased. [20] Instead, Payne and Balentine lead us to conclude that, after conducting at least three searches without any facts giving them additional suspicion, the officers could not conduct another search of the vehicle based on the same suspicions they had when they searched the vehicle the first time. For the officers to return to the vehicle and conduct another search, they must have reasonably suspected some other type of illegal activity and must have continued to reasonably fear for their safety. [21] The state has the burden to allege specific and articulable facts that establish that such objectively reasonable suspicion exists. See State v. Sanders, 339 N.W.2d 557, 560 (Minn.1983). Based on this record, we are not able to conclude that the state has satisfied its burden. The officers did not testify to specific and articulable facts that would objectively lead them to suspect some other type of illegal activity after they had conducted the dog-sniff search. There is no indication in the record that, in the interval between the initial search of the vehicle and the time the officers returned to the vehicle to search it again (or at any time before they found the gun), the officers learned that Flowers was a person who was not entitled to possess a firearm. Accordingly, we conclude that it is not plausible to believe that during that interval the officers gained a reasonable suspicion that Flowers might have been illegally possessing a firearm. Additionally, we are unable to conclude on this record that the officers could have continued to reasonably fear for their safety. To the contrary, Flowers had complied with all of the officers' orders, and the officers failed to find any weapons in their searches. These facts dispelled any reasonable fear the officers had for their safety. See Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (noting that an officer's stop and frisk may continue only so long as nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel [the officer's] reasonable fear for his own or others' safety). Our conclusion is based on facts in the record. The officers did not testify that they continued to fear for their safety, and the officers' actions suggest they were no longer concerned for their safety. For instance, one of the officers testified that the officers turned off the video camera that was recording the stop because [t]he situation was under control. Additionally, the officers shifted the focus of their searches from weapons to illegal drugs when they called a drug-sniffing dog to the scene. Moreover, there were at least three squad cars and five officers at the scene, making this case distinguishable from a case where an officer acting alone might need to take additional precautions. This case is also distinguishable from Long and State v. Gilchrist, 299 N.W.2d 913 (Minn.1980). In Long, the officers had actually seen a weapon in the vehicle that the suspect might have used against them. 463 U.S. at 1036, 103 S.Ct. 3469. Here, the officers had seen nothing in their previous searches that would have confirmed or increased their fears for safety. And in Gilchrist, the officers had, as the dissent recognizes, knowledge of the suspect involved in that case. That knowledge, derived from a police bulletin, included information that (1) the suspect was suspected of homicide, (2) he owned a .357 revolver, and (3) he may have been armed and dangerous. Gilchrist, 299 N.W.2d at 914. Here, as previously noted, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that the officers had any knowledge of Flowers' status as a person who was not entitled to possess a firearm. [22] The officers may have had a remaining hunch that when they released Flowers, he might have had access to a gun at some point. But their search of Flowers and their search of the vehicle dissolved the notion that such access would be immediate. [23] The officers, however, did not stop after searching Flowers, searching the vehicle, and conducting the dog-sniff search. Instead, the officers returned to the vehicle and conducted another search. We conclude that the officers exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry search when they conducted this search. There is no indication in the record of how long this search lasted or how thorough it was. The record does indicate, however, that during this search, the officers partially dismantled the vehicle by pulling the driver's door panel back from the door frame and lifting the power-window control mechanism from the armrest of the door. Under the totality of these facts and circumstances, we conclude that the state has not met its burden of proving that this Terry search was appropriately limited in scope. To hold otherwise would be to say, in essence, that based on an officer's initial reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and reasonable fear that a suspect is armed and dangerous, the officer may detain the suspect for any length of time and there is no limit to the number of searches that the officer may conductboth of the suspect and of the vehicle he was driving. See 4 LaFave, supra, § 9.2(f), at 337 (4th ed. 2004) (There is no general rule that the detention may continue so long as the reasonable suspicion giving rise to the stop remains, for if this were the rule some stops could be continued indefinitely.). The Minnesota Constitution does not allow us to reach such a holding. Finally, while we are confident that a federal court analyzing this case using only the Terry framework would reach the same conclusion, we are uncertain, in light of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 121 S.Ct. 1536, 149 L.Ed.2d 549 (2001), whether a federal court might conclude that because the officers had probable cause to stop Flowers based solely on the license-plate light violation, the subsequent searches were justified as searches incident to arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947, 953 (7th Cir.2002) ([T]raffic stops supported by probable cause are arrests, with all the implications that follow from probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed.); see also Atwater, 532 U.S. at 354, 121 S.Ct. 1536 (If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.). In Askerooth, we noted that Atwater's sharp departure from our traditional understanding of the protections from unreasonable seizure provided a principled basis to interpret our state constitution differently. 681 N.W.2d at 362-63. We concluded in Askerooth that our state constitution does not allow police officers to arrest and search individuals solely because a minor traffic law has been violated. Id. at 363. Rather, we stated that we follow the principles and framework of Terry [when] evaluating the reasonableness of [searches and] seizures during traffic stops. Id. Using those principles (as developed in both Minnesota and federal case law) in this case, we have concluded that Flowers' rights under our state constitution were violated, and therefore we need not address the issue of whether Flowers' rights under the federal constitution were violated. For all of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court erred when it denied Flowers' motion to suppress the use of the gun as evidence. [24]