843 N.W.2d 227
Minn.2014Background
- Officers investigated Thomas Anthony as a suspected large-scale methamphetamine dealer after two controlled buys (each ~7 grams for $700).
- On the day of the second buy, Anthony left his apartment in a truck; agents stopped and arrested Anthony based on the controlled buy.
- Charles Lemert was a passenger in Anthony’s truck; officers detained Lemert during the stop and immediately conducted a pat search.
- During the pat search, an agent felt and removed a smoking pipe with residue and discovered other paraphernalia and a glass vial with <1 gram methamphetamine.
- Lemert moved his hands during the search (agents’ reports conflicted about timing), and the agent testified he followed a departmental “felony stop” policy requiring pat searches of vehicle occupants.
- Lemert moved to suppress; the district court denied the motion, the court of appeals affirmed on an “automatic-companion” rationale, and the Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless pat search of Lemert was justified by reasonable, articulable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous | Lemert: No reasonable, articulable suspicion existed; pat search violated Fourth Amendment | State: Totality of circumstances (passenger of arrested suspected drug-dealer; recent controlled buys; truck tied to drug activity) justified protective frisk | Court: Affirmed denial of suppression — under the totality of circumstances officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a pat search |
| Whether an "automatic-companion" rule permits pat searches of companions of arrestees | Lemert: Automatic rule would be overbroad and inconsistent with totality-of-circumstances inquiry | State (in court of appeals): Companion of an arrestee in a vehicle suspected of drug activity may be frisked automatically | Court: Declined to adopt automatic-companion rule; companion status is a factor but pat searches must be evaluated case-by-case under totality of the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (permitted protective pat searches upon reasonable, articulable suspicion that detainee is armed and dangerous)
- Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993) (contraband clearly identifiable by touch during lawful frisk may be seized)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (reasonable-suspicion inquiries require totality-of-the-circumstances analysis)
- United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981) (officers may draw inferences based on training and experience when assessing suspicion)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (an officer’s subjective motives do not invalidate objectively reasonable Fourth Amendment conduct)
- Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) (rejected categorical expansion of search incident to arrest beyond immediate area)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999) (passenger belongings may be searched when probable cause exists to search vehicle)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) (eschews categorical rules; reasonableness of warrantless intrusions evaluated case-by-case)
- State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) (illustrates need for facts linking arrestee’s drug activity to the stopped vehicle when justifying seizure)
- United States v. Bustos-Torres, 396 F.3d 935 (8th Cir. 2005) (recognizes nexus between drug transactions and weapons, supporting frisk in drug investigations)
- United States v. Berryhill, 445 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1971) (discusses automatic-companion rule in companion-search context)