Court Opinion

ID: 9657031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:11:11.300879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:39.852832
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority on the “in the presence” argument, but dissent on the probable cause determination. In Ybarra, 444 U.S. at 91, 100 S.Ct. at 342, the United States Supreme Court held:
[A] person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be. (Citation omitted) (emphasis added).
The trial court reviewed all objective facts known to law enforcement at the time they arrested Alan and concluded those facts were insufficient to constitute probable cause. The trial court considered Alan’s stop at Tom’s residence. The videotape is inconclusive. It shows Alan standing at the door of the house for a few moments and then returning to his vehicle. The view of Alan in the doorway is partially (almost one-half) obscured by a tree, and the note placed on the door by Lake cannot be seen. Although Lake saw Alan riding in the same car with Tom after he picked up the cocaine, the trial court found, “[tjhere was no evidence to suggest that the defendant, Alan Baysinger, knew of the contents of the package[.]”
The trial court determined that these facts established nothing more than Alan’s mere propinquity to Tom and concluded this was insufficient under Ybarra to establish probable cause to arrest Alan. Although the police knew from their informant that Tom had discussed the drug delivery with another unidentified person, the trial court could well have determined that Lake’s prior observations of Alan amounted only to mere suspicion, not probable cause.
Certainly the trial court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. Indeed, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. Corder, 460 N.W.2d at 736. And regarding the trial court’s suppression of evidence, we are not to determine whether we would have made a like decision, but only whether a judicial mind, considering the law and facts, could have reached a similar decision. Pfaff, 456 N.W.2d at 561.