State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright, A16-445

Background

Late-night 911 call reported five people in a black Chevy Impala acting suspiciously; caller saw someone exit and look into a neighbor’s car and later saw a white male with a shaved head, white shirt, baggy jeans, walking in the cul-de-sac.
Sgt. Curtis Smith arrived, located appellant Gary Wright matching the description about 40 feet from the parked Impala, and asked what he was doing. Wright said he was waiting for a friend (“Pixie”) but could not identify which house or provide a last name.
Wright confirmed affiliation with the car’s occupants; he had no ID but gave his name and birth date and disclosed a prior felony assault-with-a-weapon conviction.
Wright appeared fidgety and repeatedly put his hands in his pockets despite being told to keep them out; the vehicle’s occupants later told Officer Whiteford they were not with Wright.
Sgt. Smith detained Wright, performed a pat-down for weapons, felt a gun in Wright’s pant leg, recovered a loaded handgun and ammunition, and then arrested Wright; Wright was charged as an ineligible person in possession of a firearm.
Wright moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful stop/frisk; after a Rasmussen hearing the district court denied suppression and convicted Wright; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wright)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop/detain Wright	No — asking for ID and initial questioning constituted a seizure absent reasonable suspicion	Yes — 911 tip, matching description, proximity to suspiciously parked car, evasive answers, and fidgeting created reasonable suspicion	Stop was a lawful investigatory stop; reasonable suspicion existed
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry frisk	No — officer lacked particularized basis to believe Wright was armed or dangerous	Yes — prowling-cars report, fidgeting, ignoring commands to keep hands out of pockets, and mismatch with vehicle occupants justified concern for safety	Frisk was justified; officer could pat down and seize weapon felt on outer clothing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. 2005) (courts review reasonable-suspicion stops cautiously; nervous behavior alone is weak support)
State v. Smith, 814 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 2012) (appellate courts accept district court’s factual findings unless clearly erroneous)
State v. Ortega, 770 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 2009) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless an exception applies)
State v. Pike, 551 N.W.2d 919 (Minn. 1996) (investigatory stop requires specific, articulable facts giving rise to suspicion of criminal activity)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (reasonable-suspicion inquiry considers totality of the circumstances)
State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 2008) (reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause)
State v. Klamar, 823 N.W.2d 687 (Minn. App. 2012) (officer need only support inference that criminal activity is possible)
State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 2000) (deference to officer training and experience in assessing reasonable suspicion)
State v. Dickerson, 481 N.W.2d 840 (Minn. 1992) (Terry frisk permitted when officer reasonably believes suspect is armed and dangerous)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (established stop-and-frisk doctrine)
State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90 (Minn. 1999) (pat-down limited to outer clothing; objects giving probable cause may be seized)
State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 2007) (suspicious movements and failure to comply can justify officer safety concerns)
State v. Martinson, 581 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1998) (combined circumstances can support a reasonable belief of criminal activity)
State v. Cripps, 533 N.W.2d 388 (Minn. 1995) (request for ID can be a seizure when it effectively compels proof of innocence)