In State of Minnesota vs. Theng Yang, an opinion published June 18, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that police cannot detain someone only on a report that he is carrying a gun when the man is in the front yard of his home.
Police were dispatched one afternoon to a residence after a 911 report that an Asian male wearing red pants had a gun. The officers who answered the call recognized the address from drug arrests. When the officers got to the address, they saw four or five Asian men in the front yard. One of the men was wearing red pants. The officers drew their guns and ordered the men down. The man wearing the red pants, Theng Yang, was handcuffed. When asked by the officers where his gun was, Yang told them it was in his coat pocket.
Yang, who was ineligible to possess a firearm because of a previous felony conviction, was arrested and charged with unlawful firearm possession. Yang asked the district court to suppress evidence of the gun on the basis that the officers who detained him did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was involved in criminal activity, and therefore, the seizure of Yang was illegal and the subsequent finding of the gun should be suppressed. The district court denied Yang’s request, found him guilty and convicted him of unlawful firearm possession. Yang was sentenced to 60 months in prison. Yang filed a motion for a downward dispositional sentencing departure prior to the sentencing hearing, and it was denied. Yang challenged the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the gun and the denial of his sentencing motion by appealing to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Yang’s challenge to the denial of the suppression of evidence of the gun was a Fourth Amendment challenge. The Fourth Amendments provides for the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to legally conduct a warrantless, investigatory seizure of an individual, there must be objective reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. There no dispute that Yang was seized when the officers drew their guns. A person is seized when an officer confronts an individual and restrains the individual’s freedom to walk away.
Minnesota law prohibits a person from carrying a handgun in a public place. (There is an exception to individuals who have obtained a permit to carry a firearm). The question posed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals was whether or not there was probable cause to detain Yang on the report that he had a firearm if he was in his front yard. It turns on an analysis of whether Yang’s yard is a “public place.” If the yard is not a “public place,” there is no basis for the officers to seize Yang unless there is suspicion of other criminal activity, thereby making the seizure illegal and any evidence obtained from the seizure (the gun) would have to be suppressed.
Instead of explicitly determining whether the front yard of Yang’s home is a public place, the Court of Appeals looked to the definition of public place and found that a “public place” is 1) property that is governmentally owned, leased, or controlled, or 2) private property that has been dedicated to the public for its use. Since Yang’s front yard arguably fit neither of these definitions, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that he was illegally seized and the gun should have been suppressed because carrying a pistol in a private yard does not constitute carrying a pistol in a public place. Since Yang’s conviction was overturned on this basis, the denial of his sentencing motion was not considered.
A conviction of unlawful firearm possession can result in a minimum of 5 years in prison. If you or a loved one are facing charges it is important to have someone who knows the law looking out for you. Call Holly R. Frame today at (651) 361-9830.