State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake, A16-232

Background

Around 2:00 a.m., Officer Everett saw a Chrysler with an open door in a parking lot and began investigating a possible car prowl.
As he approached, Sean Peake emerged from a nearby Chevy Blazer and walked quickly toward an apartment building; the officer stopped Peake, who argued and repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets.
A woman, K.C., exited the Blazer, stood between the officer and Peake, and said Peake was changing K.C.’s headlight; the officer recognized K.C. and then identified the Chrysler as her vehicle, dispelling the car-prowl suspicion.
Despite the car-prowl explanation, the officer suspected further wrongdoing and conducted a pat-frisk; he found pipes and a small bindle later identified as suspected methamphetamine.
Peake moved to suppress; the district court denied suppression. On stipulated-evidence appeal, the court of appeals reversed, holding the frisk lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion once the initial basis for the stop was dispelled.

Issues

Issue	Peake's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the pat-frisk was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity	Frisk was unlawful because the original car-prowl suspicion was dispelled when K.C. identified the Chrysler as hers, and remaining facts did not objectively support new suspicion	Frisk was justified by officer safety and cumulative suspicious facts (furtive movements, argument, rapid movement, K.C.’s interference)	Reversed: no reasonable, articulable suspicion at time of pat-frisk once car-prowl explanation dispelled; evidence suppressed
Whether officer safety alone justified a frisk after initial suspicion dissipated	Safety concern cannot salvage a frisk absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity	Officer safety remained a concern (possible weapon or concealed contraband)	Rejected: officer safety did not justify frisk without reasonable, articulable suspicion once initial justification ended
Whether association with a known drug user or Peake’s furtive movements provided particularized suspicion of drug possession	Mere association with a suspected drug user and putting hands in pockets are insufficient to form reasonable suspicion	In aggregate, association and furtive conduct created reasonable suspicion	Rejected: association and pocketing hands were not particularized, objective grounds sufficient to justify frisk
Whether scope/duration of stop could expand based on newly developed suspicion before resolving original investigation	Stop had to end when original basis was dispelled unless objective, articulable new suspicion arose in time to resolve the original stop	Officer developed new, articulable suspicions that justified expansion to a frisk	Held for Peake: officer had no articulated new reasonable suspicion within the relevant time; expansion was not justified

Key Cases Cited

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes stop-and-frisk authority under reasonable, articulable suspicion and officer safety concerns)
State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) (evidence from seizure without reasonable suspicion must be suppressed)
State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353 (Minn. 2004) (an initially valid stop may become invalid if its intensity or scope becomes intolerable)
State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125 (Minn. 2002) (stop scope may expand if reasonable suspicion of other criminal activity develops within time needed to resolve original suspicion)
State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239 (Minn. 2007) (Terry requires both reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and belief suspect may be armed and dangerous)