Multiple Traffic Violations Allow Expansion of Search To Vehicle

STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN COURT OF APPEALS, A06-1149: State of Minnesota v. Schnaut Deante Currie, Filed November 13, 2007:

Police initially stopped the Defendant because of several traffic violations. Three officers testified that they directed a spotlight on appellant’s vehicle as they pulled it over, and they observed him make movements that suggested he was either concealing something or removing something from a hiding place. Based on the traffic violations and the observations, the police conducted a search of the vehicle and found a firearm. The Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subds. 1(b), 2(b) (2004). The Defendant appealed and argued that the district court erred by refusing to suppress evidence discovered during a warrantless search of his automobile.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that an individual committing even a minor criminal offense in the presence of an officer may be arrested and searched. See Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354, 121 S. Ct. 1536, 1557 (2001).

In Minnesota, however, the courts have construed the Minnesota Constitution as affording greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. In Minnesota, “the scope and duration of a traffic stop investigation must be limited to the justification for the stop.” State v. Fort, 660 N.W.2d 415, 418 (Minn. 2003). Each expansion of a stop beyond the original purpose must be justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of additional criminal activity. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d at 488. An exception to this general rule is that:

[a] protective search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if 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, 810 (Minn. 2003).

In this case, the initial stop was based on traffic violations, which would normally limit any search to effectuating the purpose of the original stop. However, the court found two justifications for the police to search the vehicle.

First, the court held that this situation differs from minor driving violation in Askerooth. In this case "police observed an escalating series of traffic violations, including equipment violations, failing to signal a turn, driving at 50 miles per hour in a 30-mile-per-hour-zone, failing to stop at two stop signs, and accelerating over speed bumps. This conduct is more serious than a minor driving violation. Cf. State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575, 579 (Minn. 1997) (noting that “very few drivers can traverse any appreciable distance without violating some traffic regulation”). Thus, the number of violations raised a heightened degree of suspicion in the officers observing the conduct."

Second, because the police initially noticed the Defendant making movements during the initial stop, the court held that:

This conduct supports their decision to remove appellant and his passengers from the car, frisk them, and place them in squad cars or handcuff them. This conduct also supports their reasonable suspicion that the vehicle could contain weapons or contraband, permitting them to search the car in the interest of officer safety.

Based on this, the court affirmed the decision of the district court and held that police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity that permitted expansion of the search beyond the initial stop.