traffic stops and an actual case
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/supct/0512/opa041530-1201.htm
This is an actual case involving a traffic stop that I am quite familiar with, as I litigated it – won at the trial court level
, reversed by the court of appeals
, won again at the supreme court
. While this is applicable to Minnesota law, as it follows Minnesota’s analysis under the Minnesota constitution, it is instructive of the analysis of a traffic stop.
BTW, in MN the fact that a driver has CCW and informs officer of fact that there is a firearm in the vehicle specifically does not allow for a search. In fact, when running drivers license information, the fact that a driver has a carry permit will come up, followed by a notation that this alone does not provide grounds for any search.
Basically, all these cases involving traffic stops relate back to the 1968 case: Terry v. Ohio.
The federal and state constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 10. Generally, it is constitutionally impermissible for police officers to search or seize an individual unless the officers have “an arrest warrant, search warrant or have probable cause to make an arrest.” Wold v. State, 430 N.W.2d 171, 174 (1988). The proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is “subject only to a few specifically established and well delineated exceptions.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 372, 113 S. Ct. 2130, 2135 (1993) (quotations and citation omitted). For instance, under certain circumstances, an officer may perform an investigative stop of an individual and conduct a protective pat-search for weapons even if the officer does not have probable cause to make an arrest. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968). The search and seizure, however, “must be founded upon some objective justification” such as:
a reasonable suspicion entertained by a police officer based upon the officer’s experience that criminal activity may be taking place and that the individual with whom the officer is confronted may be armed and capable of immediately causing permanent harm.
For Fourth Amendment purposes, stopping a vehicle and detaining its occupants constitutes a seizure. Deleware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1396 (1979) (citations omitted). Generally, the detention that follows a lawful traffic stop “may not continue indefinitely but only as long as reasonably necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” State v. Blacksten, 507 N.W.2d 842, 846 (Minn. 1993).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has demonstrated a willingness to afford its citizens a greater protection of their right to be free from overzealous law enforcement than they presently enjoy under the Fourth Amendment. For example, the use of temporary roadblocks as sobriety checkpoints was found to violate Article 1, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, Ascher v. Comm’r of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 183, 186 (Minn. 1994), despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s acceptance of such practices under the Fourth Amendment. Michigan v. Dep’t of Public Safety v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). The Minnesota Supreme Court maintained that any investigative traffic stops must instead be based on an objective individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. Ascher, 519 N.W. at 186.
In order to support a Terry stop, the officer must have “specific and articuable facts” supporting the reasonable belief that the individual has committed an offense.
To support a “frisk”, a limited search to determine if the individual has weapons, the officer must have “specific and articuable facts” to support a reasonable belief that the individual is armed and dangerous. The Terry frisk is not an investigative search, and is limited to a pat down to determine if the person has weapons.
Traffic stops that segue into searches have been one of the most active areas of constitutional litigation in the criminal arena for the past 7-8 years. Traffic stops and searches, either consent or otherwise, have been a favorite tool in drug interdiction efforts. The debate and litigation involving traffic stops and searches has involved, among other issues, racial profiling, consent/coercion and pre-textual stops.
Bottom line: no, a LEO cannot search you or your vehicle simply because of a speeding stop. In order to frisk you, they would have to satisfy Terry with specific facts supporting a reasonable belief that you are armed and dangerous. In order to do a full scale search of you or your vehicle, they need : probable cause, or; a search incident to a custodial arrest, or; if they impound your car, they can do an inventory search pursuant to department/agency policy.
