In State of Minnesota vs. Brandon Ryan Smith, Smith appealed his sentence of gross misdemeanor possession of a pistol to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Smith argued that since he was stopped for speeding and not wearing a seatbelt, the officer’s question of whether there was illegal contraband in his vehicle was an expansion of the scope of the traffic stop without reasonable, articulable suspicion of illegal activity. As such, the seizure of Smith’s pistol from his vehicle was illegal. Therefore, the pistol should have been excluded from evidence, and Smith’s conviction should be overturned. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the conviction asserting that under the totality of the circumstances, reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity did exist, and as such, the expansion of the scope of the stop was justified.
Smith was stopped for speeding and a not wearing a seat belt. As officers were obtaining Smith’s driver’s license information from him, one of the officers noticed that Smith was intensely shaking. The officer asked Smith why he as shaking so badly, and whether it was due to a medical condition. Smith said he always shakes and that it was due to an undiagnosed medical condition from which he had suffered his whole life. It later came out that the officers did not suspect Smith of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but thought that his shaking was due to nervousness.
The officers then went back to their squad car to discuss their interaction with Smith. They suspected that because of his strange behavior he was probably hiding something, and they decided to investigate further. One of the officers returned to Smith’s car and asked him for his middle name, as well as whether he had any illegal contraband in the car. Smith told the officer that he had a pistol with him in the vehicle. The officers then had Smith get out of the car, and they handcuffed him. Smith told them that he did not have a permit for the pistol. Smith was then placed in the back of the squad car, and a search of his vehicle was conducted. A pistol and a box of ammunition were found in Smith’s vehicle.
Smith was charged with gross misdemeanor possession of a pistol without a permit and misdemeanor illegal transportation of a firearm. At a contested motion hearing before the district court, Smith argued that the pistol should be excluded from evidence because it was obtained illegally. Smith argued that the officers finding of the pistol was in violation of Minnesota law because officer had no right to continue to detain him for a traffic stop as there was no suspicion of criminal activity. As such, Smith argued for the exclusion of the pistol from evidence. The district court denied Smith’s motion to exclude the pistol from evidence, and found him guilty of both charges. Smith appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals vacated the misdemeanor sentence for the illegal transportation of a firearm, but affirmed the gross misdemeanor possession of a pistol sentence. Smith then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, who also affirmed the admission of the pistol into evidence.
Any detainment or search and seizure not tied to the initial basis for the intrusion by law enforcement must be supported by reasonable suspicion of additional illegal activity. A traffic stop is not an illegal search and seizure if each expansion beyond the primary justification of the stop is tied to the original reason for the stop, independent probable cause, or reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity exists. If the expansion of the stop cannot be justified by one of these, the expansion is an illegal seizure and any evidence obtained must be excluded.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has already determined that nervousness alone by a driver or vehicle occupant is not a valid basis to expand the scope of a stop beyond the original justification for the stop. However, in this case, the Supreme Court found that Smith’s nervous, violent shaking combined with his elusive answer to officers about his shaking provided officers with reasonable, articulable suspicion to support expansion of the traffic stop. Because Smith’s behavior went beyond just simple nervousness, the expansion of the stop was legal, says the Supreme Court.
Smith admitted to officers that his shaking was due to what he believed was a medical condition, yet this remark is the deciding factor by the Court that this is more than just simple nervousness. This remark is what the Court relies on to uphold the officers continued detainment of a man whose only crimes were speeding and not wearing his seatbelt. Only Justices Page and Meyer had the good sense to dissent from this menial distinguishing factor. This opinion could have adverse effects on the right against illegal search and seizures in Minnesota as related to traffic stops. Essentially this opinion gives law enforcement reasonable, articulable suspicion to search vehicles for illegal contraband if the driver displays nervousness and just one other minor behavioral trait.
If you or a loved one are facing criminal charges resulting from a traffic stop, it is important to have a knowledgeable attorney looking out for your interests. Contact Frame Law today at (651) 361-9830.