State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr.
2016 Minn. LEXIS 753
| Minn. | 2016Background
- Officers surveilled a Worthington house known for drug activity; a vehicle parked there left with a single occupant who later returned and drove away.
- Officer Joswiak and Sgt. Gaul stopped the vehicle; Joswiak recognized the driver as Jose Lugo, who had revoked driving privileges and a prior drug-related arrest.
- Lugo delayed stopping, leaned over when stopping, gave conflicting answers about vehicle ownership, and said "man just take me to jail, please." The registered owner had an outstanding felony warrant and past drug-related arrest.
- Joswiak observed some interior vehicle irregularities but the district court found the "lived-in" appearance and console removal not indicative of drugs; no signs of intoxication or drugs on Lugo during pat-search.
- A drug-detection dog alerted on the driver’s door and trunk; subsequent search produced methamphetamine and a meth pipe. District court suppressed the evidence and dismissed narcotics charges.
- The court of appeals reversed; the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether Webber created a deferential review standard for State pretrial appeals and (2) whether reasonable, articulable suspicion supported the dog-sniff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for State pretrial appeals (effect of Webber) | Webber requires deference to district court legal conclusions to discourage frivolous State appeals | Appellant State: legal issues reviewed by type (de novo for questions of law); Webber set burden, not deferential review | Webber did not create deference; to the extent it suggested so, overruled; legal questions reviewed de novo when facts undisputed |
| Reasonable-suspicion to expand stop for dog-sniff | Lugo: officers lacked particularized, objective basis to suspect drug activity; dog-sniff unlawfully extended stop | State: totality of facts (known drug house, slow stop/leaning, prior arrests, false ID, owner’s drug history, statement) gave reasonable suspicion | Court holds under totality of undisputed facts there was reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the dog-sniff; suppression was error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webber, 262 N.W.2d 157 (Minn. 1977) (discussed historical framing of State pretrial appeals)
- State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 2002) (dog-sniff of vehicle exterior requires reasonable, articulable suspicion)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996) (reasonable-suspicion mixed question; appellate courts review legal conclusions de novo)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (presence in a high-crime area may be considered in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 2000) (concealment or misrepresentations about vehicle ownership can support suspicion)
- State v. Champion, 533 N.W.2d 40 (Minn. 1995) (discusses deference to trial court on fact-specific custodial-Miranda determinations)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015) (police may not routinely extend a completed traffic stop without reasonable suspicion to conduct a dog-sniff)
- United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (flight or evasive behavior supports reasonable suspicion)