920 N.W.2d 620
Minn.2018Background
- In 2013 police responded to a 911 call from a woman who feared for her and her infant's safety because a man in her apartment appeared to have a handgun. The caller consented to officers entering the apartment.
- Officers found Justin Ries unconscious on a couch with a child asleep in a nearby room and other intoxicated adults present. Officers grabbed Ries's hands, performed a pat-frisk while he was asleep, and removed a handgun from his waistband. Ries did not wake during the frisk.
- After identifying Ries, officers discovered he was a felon and ineligible to possess a firearm; he was charged and convicted under Minn. Stat. § 609.165, subd. 1b(a).
- Ries sought postconviction relief arguing the seizure/search violated the Fourth Amendment (no reasonable suspicion) and that a juror (Juror 18) was actually biased; the postconviction court ordered a new trial based on juror bias but upheld the search under a community-caretaking rationale.
- The court of appeals affirmed the new-trial ruling and held the pat-frisk valid under Terry. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted further review on juror forfeiture and Ries cross-petitioned on the Fourth Amendment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ries) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was the warrantless pat-frisk/search of Ries lawful under Terry? | Terry requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity; officers had no such suspicion, so the frisk was unlawful. | Court of appeals: frisk valid under Terry because officers reasonably suspected a startled Ries "might" commit a crime/endanger safety. | Rejected Terry as the justification here; court of appeals erred to rely on "might"-commit-crime standard. |
| 2) Was the search/seizure lawful under an alternative exception (community-caretaker or emergency-aid)? | Community-caretaker not applicable; district court's emergency-aid rationale also contested because State didn’t press it on appeal. | State argued community-caretaking/public‑servant rationale; advanced caretaking rather than emergency-aid on appeal. | Court declines to extend community-caretaker beyond vehicles; instead holds the search was reasonable under the emergency-aid exigency exception (officers reasonably believed immediate danger from an unsecured gun). |
| 3) Did Ries forfeit the right to challenge the denial of a for-cause juror strike by not using a peremptory challenge? | Ries argued district court erred in denying for-cause strike and did not forfeit by declining to use a peremptory challenge. | State argued Ries should be required to use a peremptory to preserve the claim (forfeiture/invited error). | Court holds Rule 26.02 contains no forfeiture requirement; failure to use a peremptory does not bar appellate review; reversal required because an actually biased juror sat (structural error). |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes stop-and-frisk standard requiring reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (recognizes emergency‑aid exigency allowing warrantless entry/search to prevent imminent injury)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (articulates community‑caretaking rationale in vehicle/inventory context)
- South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (relates community‑caretaking to vehicle inventory searches)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (Fourth Amendment does not bar warrantless entries when officers reasonably believe immediate aid is needed)
- United States v. Martinez‑Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (peremptory challenges versus for‑cause challenge preservation; defendant not forced to use peremptory to preserve claim)
- State v. Lemieux, 726 N.W.2d 783 (Minn. 2007) (adopts two‑prong emergency‑aid test: reasonable grounds of emergency and reasonable basis to associate emergency with place/person)
- Ries v. State, 889 N.W.2d 308 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (court of appeals decision below holding frisk valid under Terry and addressing juror forfeiture)