Measuring Suspicion: Stop and Frisk
Pat and frisk laws in Minnesota require that an officer have “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that a suspect is involved in a relevant crime in order to conduct a warrantless pat-down. Reasonable, articulable suspicion exists when an officer has an objective and specific basis to believe that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. The determination must be based on the totality of the circumstances. Based on State v. Johnson, an officer’s suspicion and the totality of the circumstances must be specific enough to go beyond “an unarticulated hunch” and rise to the level of reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Some jurisdictions have adopted an automatic companion rule, which allows officers to search any person who is in the company of the suspect at the time of the arrest, but Minnesota has rejected this standard. So, in Minnesota, when can a person who is not the main suspect be searched?
This issue was addressed on appeal in In re C.T.B., where a firearm was discovered during a frisk of a person who had been near the original suspect. An officer, unable to locate a firearm that the original suspect was alleged to have brandished, decided to search C.T.B., who was standing nearby, and found a handgun. The discovery was challenged because the only stated basis for suspicion was that C.T.B. was “huddled” with a group that included the original suspect. Body-worn camera footage, however, showed that the suspect and C.T.B. were never “huddled,” but merely standing near each other for a brief moment.
The Court held that brief proximity plus general police knowledge is not enough to meet the threshold of reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify a stop-and-frisk. The officer did not have specific facts indicating that C.T.B. possessed a firearm and it was not reasonable to assume a firearm would be exchanged during an encounter as brief as the one shown on body-worn camera. Because the officer could not present articulable facts beyond a mere hunch based on general knowledge, C.T.B.’s Constitutional rights were violated. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the district court’s decision denying suppression of the handgun.
The Bottom Line: Talk to an Attorney at North Star Law Today!
Police officers are bound by standards designed to protect the rights of private citizens, but that doesn’t mean those standards are always followed. Mistakes, overreach, or unlawful searches can and do happen, often leaving individuals unsure of their legal options. At North Star Law, we know your rights inside and out and understand the arguments that make a difference when those rights are violated. Our attorneys carefully review the facts of each case, identify any constitutional violations, and advocate fiercely to ensure that evidence obtained unlawfully is suppressed and that your rights are fully protected. Whether you’re facing a stop-and-frisk situation, an unlawful search, or any other potential rights violation, we provide the guidance and representation needed to hold authorities accountable. violated. If you believe your rights have been infringed, talk to an attorney at North Star Law Group today.