STATE v. BRECHLER

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. C0-87-801.

Attorney(S)

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Paul G. Morreim, Freeborn County Atty., Albert Lea, for appellant. James E. Broberg, Albert Lea, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

In December 1986, Sheriff's Deputies Deckard and Wehr observed a southbound car swerve within its lane on U.S. 65 near Glenville. The deputies followed the car closely, which then pulled into a closed gas station. The officers activated their flashing red and takedown lights, effectuating a stop. During the stop, deputies observed suspicious behavior by the passenger, David Brechler, and found beer, a marijuana cigarette, a mirror with white powder and a razor blade, a marijuana pipe, and later methamphetamine and cocaine. Brechler was arrested. The trial court granted Brechler's motion to suppress the evidence seized during the stop, concluding the investigatory stop was illegal. The State appealed this suppression order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the evidence suppressed by the trial court was the result of an illegal investigatory stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981)	Established that a limited investigative stop is lawful if the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity.	The court applied this standard, finding the officers lacked a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity based solely on a swerve within the lane.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)	Defined the constitutional standard for investigatory stops requiring reasonable suspicion.	The court held that the stop did not meet the Terry standard, as the officers' suspicion was not supported by sufficient facts.
Schull v. Commissioner, 398 N.W.2d 11 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)	Reaffirmed that an investigatory stop requires a particularized and objective basis under the totality of the circumstances.	The court cited this case to support that the officers did not have adequate grounds for the stop.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the validity of the investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing that such stops require a particularized and objective suspicion of criminal activity. Here, the only observed conduct was a swerve within the lane, which did not indicate illegal behavior. The officers' close following and activation of lights precipitated the stop, which the court found was based on whim and caprice rather than reasonable suspicion. Consequently, the seizure and subsequent search violated Brechler's Fourth Amendment rights, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

Holding and Implications

The court AFFIRMED the trial court's order suppressing the evidence obtained from the stop and search of the vehicle. The direct effect is that the evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment protections will not be admissible against Brechler. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond affirming the application of established Fourth Amendment standards to the facts of this case.

Show full summary ...

STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Da

OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

David Brechler was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana. The trial court granted Brechler's motion to suppress evidence seized from the stopped car in which he was a passenger. We affirm.

FACTS

In December 1986 about 8:20 p.m., Sheriff's Deputies Ron Deckard and Gerhard Wehr were on routine patrol, northbound on U.S. 65, just north of Glenville, when they passed a southbound car which they saw swerve within its lane of travel. Deckard turned and followed the car, staying about one car length behind. The car pulled into a gas station and stopped with the patrol car behind it. The officers then turned on their flashing red lights and takedown lights. The gas station was visibly closed.

Deckard testified he saw Brechler, the passenger, moving around "furtively" and bending over. The deputies approached the car.

Wehr walked to the passenger's side and, with the aid of a flashlight, saw a six pack of beer behind the passenger seat. He removed the six-pack from the car. Five bottles were empty, and the sixth bottle was open and had about a half cup of beer in it.

When Wehr asked Brechler to step out, he saw a marijuana cigarette lying on the passenger seat, and a mirror protruding from under the passenger's seat. Wehr examined the mirror and found a line of white powder and a razor blade on it. At that point, Brechler was placed under arrest. A cursory search of the car yielded a marijuana pipe and lighter in a compartment by the shift lever. Brechler was taken to the Law Enforcement Center, where a jailer searched him and found a paper containing white powder which the BCA analyzed as containing methamphetamine (speed). The powder on the mirror contained cocaine.

ISSUES

Was the evidence suppressed by the trial court the result of an illegal investigatory stop?

ANALYSIS

The fourth amendment applies to seizures of the person, including brief investigatory stops such as the stop of the vehicle in this case. A limited investigative stop is lawful if the officer is able to articulate that he had a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).

The police saw only that a car swerved on the road. The car neither left the road nor crossed the center line, but stayed in its lane. There was no driving conduct suggesting criminal activity. Based on that single observation, the police turned around and followed at about one car length. All that subsequently followed could easily be inferred to have been engendered by the presence of a police car in such proximity.

The trial court could conclude that the occupants of the car, aware that they were under close scrutiny, slowed, signaled for more than one possible turn and then chose a closed gas station as a stopping place in response to the presence of the tailgating police; they had not met the test of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

As recently as December 1986, our Court of Appeals said:

A police officer may make an investigatory stop if, considering the totality of the circumstances, he has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.

Schull v. Commissioner, 398 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986).

The police did not order the driver to stop, because they did not need to; their extremely close presence could have precipitated the stop. What followed was a seizure; once the flashing red lights and "take down" lights were activated, the occupants of the car were no longer free to leave.

After seeing only a swerve, the officers engendered a stop that was the product of whim and caprice. Because the stop was improper, all that followed, including the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the controlled substance, was done in violation of Brechler's fourth amendment rights.

DECISION

The trial court's order that the fruits of the search be suppressed is affirmed.

Affirmed.