State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole
A15-1635
| Minn. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2016Background
- On Aug. 31, 2014 a named 911 caller reported two Black males passing a gun near a transit hub and described their clothing; police broadcast the tip.
- Officers found two men matching the description, ordered them to the ground with guns drawn, handcuffed them, and frisked them.
- While being frisked, Poole said he had a BB gun in his waistband; officers recovered a black BB gun.
- A background check showed Poole was prohibited from possessing firearms; he was arrested and charged under Minn. Stat. § 624.713 for possession by an ineligible person.
- Poole moved to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds; the district court denied suppression, a jury convicted him, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Poole) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of seizure and frisk | Officers had reasonable suspicion from the identified-tip and observed matching suspects to detain and frisk. | The stop/seizure was unlawful (de facto arrest); suppression required. | Stop and frisk were lawful: reliable, identified tip + matching description gave reasonable suspicion; frisk was justified. |
| 2. Probable cause to arrest for carrying a BB gun in public | Discovery of BB gun in public gave probable cause for violation of MN § 624.7181 (gross misdemeanor). | Officers lacked knowledge whether an exception (e.g., lawful transport) applied, so no probable cause. | Probable cause existed despite lack of information about exceptions; statute’s exclusions are exceptions, not elements. |
| 3. Whether a BB gun is a “firearm” under § 624.713 | A BB gun qualifies as a firearm under controlling precedent (Fleming, Seifert). | A BB gun is not a firearm under § 624.713; Fleming wrongly decided. | Court follows Fleming: a BB gun is a firearm under § 624.713. |
| 4. Evidentiary and instructional errors (officer testimony and jury instruction) | Testimony and instruction accurately stated the law; knowledge that a BB gun is a firearm is not an element. | Allowing officers to testify and instructing that a BB gun is a firearm impermissibly directed verdict / required proof of legal knowledge. | Any testimonial error was harmless; jury instruction that a BB gun is a firearm and that legal knowledge is not an element was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fleming, 724 N.W.2d 537 (Minn. App. 2006) (holds a BB gun falls within the operative definition of “firearm” for § 624.713)
- State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 2008) (discusses when statutory language is an element versus an exception; reliance on Paige)
- State v. Paige, 256 N.W.2d 298 (Minn. 1977) (reasoning that “without a permit” language creates an exception rather than an element)
- State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733 (Minn. 2005) (jury must decide factual elements; instruction error reversed where court removed element from jury)
- State v. Salyers, 858 N.W.2d 156 (Minn. 2015) (state must prove ineligible person’s possession with knowledge of the physical item, not knowledge of legal classification)