State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker, A15-1615

Background

Off-duty Dakota County deputy (not in uniform) observed Kurt Baker drive into a hotel parking lot, jump a curb, exit his pickup, then return to the truck when ordered by the deputy.
The deputy, who knew Baker from prior drug activity, stood at the open driver’s window, leaned toward the window, and testified he smelled fresh marijuana emanating from the truck.
The deputy arrested Baker for misdemeanor reckless driving (though Baker was never charged with that offense) and searched the vehicle, recovering marijuana and a bag containing 9.548 grams of methamphetamine.
Baker moved to suppress the drugs, arguing the search was illegal: he contended the deputy ‘‘stuck his nose in’’ the truck (a separate unlawful search) and later argued on appeal that an off‑duty officer cannot conduct a warrantless investigatory search.
The district court denied suppression, finding the stop lawful, that the odor of marijuana emanated from inside the truck (providing probable cause under the automobile exception), and that an off‑duty officer may effect an arrest in his jurisdiction.
On appeal, the court affirmed: it held the deputy smelled marijuana from outside the vehicle (probable cause for the automobile exception) and declined to consider the off‑duty officer search argument as forfeited.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deputy’s leaning in to the truck was a separate, unconstitutional “sniff search” requiring independent probable cause	Baker: the deputy ‘‘stuck his nose in’’ the truck; leaning into the vehicle is a search and cannot justify a warrantless search without probable cause	State: the deputy smelled marijuana emanating from the truck; odor provides probable cause under the automobile exception; issue was not timely raised	Court: the district court’s finding that odor emanated from inside the truck is not clearly erroneous; odor gave probable cause and justified the warrantless search under the automobile exception
Whether evidence should be suppressed because the search was performed by an off‑duty officer	Baker: as a matter of first impression, off‑duty officers should not conduct warrantless investigatory searches, especially in presence of on‑duty officers	State: issue forfeited by Baker for failing to raise it below; district court relied on statute allowing off‑duty arrests	Court: forfeited — not raised or developed below; declined to address the Fourth Amendment reasonableness issue
Whether the stop itself or officer’s authority were legally deficient	Baker initially raised jurisdictional/authority concerns but did not pursue them on appeal	State: stop and officer authority were lawful; district court found the deputy observed a misdemeanor traffic offense and had jurisdiction to arrest	Court: Baker did not challenge legality of stop on appeal; district court’s findings supported lawfulness of stop
Whether plain‑error review applies to unpreserved Fourth Amendment claims	Baker: sought appellate review of the leaning/airspace search argument	State: argued waiver/forfeiture	Court: applied forfeiture/plain‑error framework but found the claim fails on the merits because the court’s factual finding supports probable cause

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484 (Minn. 2005) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable absent an exception)
State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 2007) (automobile exception permits warrantless vehicle searches when probable cause exists)
State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1978) (odor of marijuana from vehicle supports warrantless search)
State v. Wicklund, 205 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 1973) (officers may use senses, including smell, to detect criminal evidence)
State v. Beaulieu, 859 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. 2015) (forfeiture distinct from waiver; plain‑error framework for unpreserved issues)
State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 2003) (state bears burden to prove exception to warrant requirement applies)