State v. Martinson

Respondent stating public- after he had a conflict could not 1. Terrazas is Aldo J. ly reprimanded placed years be and is on rescheduled. shall, probation during upon which time he Furthermore, there are several oth request, make available to Director’s mitigate er in this case that circumstances Director, trust account books and rec- favor of Terrazas. Terrazas testified that he keep ords he is under problems during from serious health suffered applicable precedent. rules and parts investigation and that the death Respondent complete 2. must anger- an during of his uncle this time contributed to counseling program approved the Di- addition, noncooperative In conduct. Respondent begin pro- rector. must misconduct, exception with the Terrazas’ gram days within 60 of the date of this complaint, the O’Connor does not involve order, complete ordinary init course determining client matters. When whether program and have no similar com- discipline appropriate, we consider the plaints during probation. If there are harmed, “number clients the extent [and] complaints during probation similar or re- Randall, injuries.”. of the clients’ In Re spondent complete anger- does not (Minn.1997). 679, 683 The matter N.W.2d counseling. program, respondent will be O’Connor, involving who was a former client subject 90-day to an suspension automatic managed, of the firm that Terrazas was an on the sup- motion of the Director with Finally, isolated incident. Terrazas has no porting proving affidavits the nature of the prior disciplinary history, which is another addition, noncompliance.’ respondent In factor determining proper we consider when subject will be discipline further discipline. Id. may appropriate for future rule circumstances, violations. Under the we conclude that suspension an necessary automatic is not Respondent pay shall to the Director purposes fulfill the attorney discipline in costs and disbursements $900 under impose this case. haveWe declined to sus Rule RLPR. pensions prior involving cases misconduct ordered. So See, that is more serious than in this case. e.g., Haefele, In re 508 N.W.2d 780-81

(Minn.1993) (imposing public reprimand and probation writing trust account checks in funds;

excess client misappropriating account; earned interest on trust paying earned interest on trust account funds with determining share;

out each client’s and fail ing proper to maintain trust account books Minnesota, petitioner, STATE did); certifying records while that he Appellant, 102, 102 (Minn.1993) Brudvig; re 503 N.W.2d (imposing public reprimand years su pervised probation for unintentionally misap MARTINSON, Daniel Thomas funds, propriating failing client to maintain Respondent. books, proper trust account other trust ac No. C1-96-1947. violations, failing put count contingency agreement fee in writing, neglecting Supreme Court of Minnesota. matters). client July agree We do with the referee that some discipline is warranted and we share the

referee’s concerns about temper. Terrazas’

Terrazas explosive tempera- use his ment as unprofessional an excuse for behav- Accordingly,

ior. we order that: III, Attorney H. Humphrey

Hubert Gener- al, Attorney Paul R. Kempainen, Assistant General, Paul, Appellant. St. Stuart, Minnesota John M. State Public Defender, Oldfather, Timothy Chad M. C. Rank, Benson, Faegre Minneapolis, for & Respondent.

OPINION

TOMLJANOVICH, Justice.

This case from the detention and arises who arrest of Daniel Thomas Martinson possession charged with six counts trafficking offenses. Martinson filed drugs suppress motion to seized as a arrest. The trial result of detention pretrial suppression denied court Martinson’s motion, jury trial and Martinson waived and allowed the trial court decide case x stipulated on the basis of facts. The trial 1 foot 8 inches and had wheels and a han- dle. guilty first-degree court found Martinson of a Staber found this “unusual” because the enough was small carried on controlled substance crime and sentenced observations, plane. Based on these prison.1 him to 54 months in The court of Staber approached and Officer Giller Martinson. appeals conviction in an reversed Martinson’s displayed badge his Staber and identification unpublished opinion because it believed the told that he and Martinson was a member of denying suppression trial the court erred Airport the Narcotics Interdiction Unit and Concluding motion. that the district court speak asked Martinson if he could motion, him. denying not err in Martinson’s did Staber told Martinson that he was under ap- we reverse the decision the court of being arrest or detained. Staber asked Mar- peals reinstate and Martinson’s conviction. from, coming tinson where he was and Mar- following stipulated. The are the facts as Arizona, tinson first said then corrected him- On June several narcotics officers Vegas. self and said Las Martinson had observing passengers arriving were at the Phoenix, actually Minneapolis flown from Minneapolis/St. Airport Paul from Las Ve- Vegas. Las via Staber then asked to see gas, baggage Nevada in the claim area be- began Martinson’s airline ticket. Martinson past experience cause the officers knew from removing a Northwest Airlines ticket folder passengers coming city from this had bag, from his pushed duffel but then possession drugs. often been found in Be- bag ticket folder back into the duffel and date, fore this none of the ‘officers knew removed an America West ticket folder from Martinson, anything they about nor did have pocket a bag. different on the duffel The any suspect target reason to him because America one-way West ticket was a ticket expect had no reason to his arrival at paid for in cash from Minneapolis, Phoenix to airport. that, Vegas. via Las Staber stated in his Officer Staber first noticed Martinson as experience, drug most using carriers travel coming he was down the escalator to the one-way paid tickets cash. baggage claim “carrying area because he was Staber asked Martinson for some identifi- bag a duffel with a strap shoulder over his cation produced and Martinson a certified very tightly, shoulder almost like a football.” copy of his birth certificate. Martinson did Staber then noticed that Martinson did not photo not have identification or other stop at Carousel 14 lug- where the checked it, identification with his on address which gage plane from arriving Martinson’s “unusual,” although photo Staber found iden- and assumed that leaving Martinson was tification was not for airline travel airport only carry-on-luggage. and Sta- at that time. Staber then asked to see the ber testified he continued to Mar- watch folder, Northwest Airlines ticket and it con- tinson because one things one-way tained a ticket Minneapolis from enforcement people officers watch for is who May -just Phoenix dated days two 1995— only carry-on luggage. travel with Staber earlier. Both airline tickets and the birth paused watched as Martinson in the area of certificate- had consistent information with restroom, Carousel went to the and then identification, regard to except Martinson’s returned to the area of 14 Carousel to wait misspelled America West ticket his name luggage. for his Staber noted that Martin- “Martanson”. Staber asked Martinson the son “agitated” “upset” seemed and and did purpose Arizona, trip for his and Martin- place” not “remain in paced one but around gone job son stated that he had for a inter- passengers. carousel unlike the other view., Staber found the ticket situation sus- arrived, luggage When picious Martinson’s Staber because he assumed that it would saw that Martinson retrieved one hard-sided have been purchase more economical to x approximately because, that measured round-trip feet experi- ticket and his 2½ 152.0261, (1996). However, guilty importing § Martinson was found co- Stat. subd. charge caine state granted across borders. This was the trial court exercised its discretion and (a carrying penalty possible year departure the heaviest sentencing guide- downward from the $1,250,000). sentence sentencing fine of See Minn. lines in Martinson to and/or months. arrest, applied Martinson’s Staber return After ence, travel and drug couriers often .their travel for and obtained a search warrant for both to conceal airlines on different bags. application for the search itineraries. dog’s positive warrant noted the alert to if he would asked Martinson then Staber presence of a controlled substance. Staber Mar- luggage, his to a search of consent nothing illegal bag, in the duffel but found refused, strap his duffel putting tinson grams grams of cocaine found 1000 “look[ing] as if he bag over his shoulder bag. methamphetamine the hard-sided away.” point, At this to walk was about being that he was informed Martinson' Staber suppress filed a motion to dog could examine until a narcotics detained during his detention and evidence obtained dog present at the There was a luggage. arrest on the basis that the evidence was a few normally it takes airport, and of the unconstitutionally obtained in violation radio dog to arrive once the minutes for the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. that at admitted request is made. Staber hearing A was held in which the Rasmussen to probable not have cause point he did this trial court motion and denied Martinson’s n arrest Martinson. that the evidence was not uncon- determined stitutionally obtained and would be admissi- ciga- have a asked if he could Martinson ble at trial. arrive, dog and waiting for the to rette while him out- Tyndall escorted and Officer Staber guilty After Martinson was found of smoke, he could while Officer side so that crime, first-degree controlled substance Mar- luggage. Once out- remained with Giller of appealed judgment tinson to the court side, why asked he had been Martinson conviction, appeals, which reversed the find- they that told him stopped, and Staber ing that detention was unconsti- Martinson’s character- passengers with certain looked for not have tutional because the officers did lug- to search permission istics who denied suspicion” justify conducting to “reasonable gage. also told Martinson Staber ap- investigative stop. The state then brief carrying people small were not interested court. We áre now pealed to this use. At this drugs for personal amounts an narcotics officers had whether the decide pants leg and pulled up his point, Martinson objective suspicion justifying the syringe a small from sock and removed lug- stop Martinson and his investigative asked what handed it to Staber. Staber gage. for, replied, “I syringe was and undisputed and the facts are When then just got into this shit.” Martinson law, question is a the trial court’s decision pants glass from his pulled out a small vial novo review. State v. this court exercises de “crystal stating it was meth.” pocket, 260, (Minn.1996); Paul, 264 see 548 N.W.2d that he was then told Martinson Staber 690, States, 517 U.S. also Ornelas v. United possession of a controlled arrest for under (1996) 1657, 699, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 116 S.Ct. threw the vial Martinson then substance. of reasonable (stating that “determinations attempted run but was subdued and re probable cause should be suspicion and taking were these events arrested. While appeal”). viewed de novo on airport, dog the narcotics place outside to the U.S. The Fourth Amendment the two indicated had arrived Giller I, 10 Section and Article dog. Constitution pieces luggage to be examined person’s protect a Constitution presence of controlled Minnesota dog The noted the searches right free from unreasonable bag, get not to be in the but substances duffel did seizures, providing person that a inspect the hard-sided because by proba preceded if the search is officers searched Martinson. The scuffle outside with scuffle, See the issuance of a warrant. ble cause and area of the inside went outside to the 1868, Ohio, 1, 20, 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. an v. bags unattended for leaving Martinson’s (1968). However, the U.S. 889 None of the 20 L.Ed.2d amount of time. undetermined investigato has held that an Supreme Court dog if the ever sniffed know-for sure officers in the absence ry is constitutional bag. seizure the hard-sided 850 (1983)). police if the

probable cause and warrant U.S. Court has de- “ “specific point can and articulable particu- officer scribed reasonable as ‘a which, together rational in- objective suspecting facts taken larized and basis’ for facts, reasonably those war- person stopped ferences from activity.” of criminal Id. at 21, 696, Id. at rant that intrusion.” 88 S.Ct. 1868. (quoting 116 S.Ct. 1657 United States v. Similarly, Cortez, 411, 417-18, 690, “[a] this court has held brief 449 U.S. 101 S.Ct. (1981)). investigatory stop requires only reasonable Furthermore, 66 621 L.Ed.2d rea- activity, of criminal than rather suspicion requires police sonable Pike, probable cause.” v. 551 N.W.2d State something officer able to articulate “be more (Minn.1996) 919, (citing Terry, 392 U.S. unparticularized suspi- than an ‘inchoate and ’ ” 1868). 21-22, 88 at S.Ct. cion or “hunch.” United States v. Soko- low, 1, .7, 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. place A “seizure” has taken (1989) (quoting Terry, L.Ed.2d purposes Fourth Amendment when “in view 1868). principal compo- “The S.Ct. surrounding of all of the circumstances suspi- nents of a determination of reasonable incident, person a reasonable would have be * * * cion will be the events which occurred that he lieved free to leave.”2 Unit search, leading up stop to the and then the Mendenhall, ed States facts, decision whether these historical (1980). 64 L.Ed.2d 497 How standpoint objectively viewed from the of an ever, it should be noted that: officer, police reasonable amount to reason- enforcement officers do not violate [L]aw Ornelas, suspicion.” 696, able 517 at U.S. by merely ap- the Fourth Amendment 116 S.Ct. 1657. proaching an individual on the street or in (hereinafter public place, by investigatory asking another him if he is Brief seizures willing questions, by put- stops) justified airport to answer some have in been an ting questions person setting ‘public to him if the will- because of “the interest in- is listen, ing by suppression to or in volved -in the offering illegal evidence in a transac- - prosecution voluntary drugs criminal his tions in answers other serious ” 1, 5, questions. Rodriguez, to such Nor the fact crime.’ Florida v. would 469 U.S. 308, (1984) 105 police (quoting the officer identifies himself as a S.Ct. 83 L.Ed.2d 165 officer, more, Royer, 498-99, without convert the Florida v. 460 at encoun- U.S. 103 1319). ter into a requiring Supreme seizure some level of S.Ct. The U.S. Court has objective justification. also person indicated that a a has lower expectation privacy major in a internation- 497, 103 Royer, 491, Florida v. 460 U.S. S.Ct. airport primarily al because of the extensive 1319, (1983) (citations 75 L.Ed.2d 229 omit antihijacking equipment surveillance and ted). which, arguably, may make a determination person If a has been “seized” without suspicion of reasonable somewhat easier to warrant, probable police cause and/or airport in an articulate than in some other officer must then set forth the basis for 6,105 setting. Id. at S.Ct. 308. person reasonable that the his/her engaging was in activity. prevent some Ter In transport criminal efforts to of ille- ry, at gal drugs, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Reasonable agents federal and other law en- easily is not nor it developed drug defined is “readi forcement have officers ly, usefully, or even profiles, reduced to a neat set of courier which consist of several Ornelas, 695-96, legal rules.” 517 at U.S. characteristics that officers to believe be Gates, (quoting 116 S.Ct. 1657 Illinois v. person engaged drug 462 consistent with a LaFave, trafficking.3 Wayne L.Ed.2d R. Search (2) "major city”; leaving plane Martinson was seized Fourth for Amendment from last; source purposes (3) (4) when Staber informed him he was carrying luggage; changing no dog not free to leave until a route; narcotics could cash; (5) flights purchasing en tickets with luggage. examine his (6) ticket; (7) using buying a false name on the (8) shortly departure; tickets before the time of 3. Some of the characteristics considered to fit continually looking passing through back while (1) drug profile traveling courier are: to or (1) Treatise on the Fourth city arrived from a source A [Martinson] and Seizure: (3d ed.1996). early flight morning in the hours on a on 9.4(e), Amendment § . previous drug which had arrived. couriers in this the officers it is obvious Since (2) behavior was unusual: he part, [Martinson’s] on so- relying, at least case were appeared agitated, passen- unlike the other profiles, we direct our drug courier called gers flight past bag- on his he walked profiles. of such to the use attention gage flight, carousel for his an- waited Williams, 525 N.W.2d 547-48 State then, other one and when he to returned (Minn.1994), prosecutor held that we carousel, paced the correct he about and profile drug not elicit courier evidence could opposite forth to sides of the back and at trial on during the state’s ease-in-chief carousel. However, guilt. the issue of the defendant’s (3) tightly clutching was [Martinson] Williams implicate be- this case does bag leather ‘like a football.’ black duffel issue in Williams was not whether cause (4) small checked was approaching [Martinson’s] police appropriately acted him enough for to have carried it on the obtaining consent defendant plane, indicating may it have contained search, it in the instant case. as during items he did not want seen board- only implicates the manner Williams ing security cheeks. profile drug which courier evidence (5) coming asked where he When used at trial.

from, initially said Arizona and [Martinson] changed Vegas. then his answer to Las extremely reluctant While we are (6) ticket, for his [Martinson] When asked rely solely upon profile courier initially a Northwest started remove asserting suspicion, purposes of envelope attempted ticket which he then has stated that: “A the U.S. Court taking out his America conceal before sitting court to determine the existence West ticket. suspicion require agent must reasonable the (7) one-way a from Phoenix His ticket was leading to that con to articulate the factors cash, practice paid for in a which the offi- clusion, may that but the fact these factors cers knew to consistent with that of ‘profile’ in not somehow be set forth a does drug other couriers had arrested. evidentiary significance as detract from their (8) Sokolow, only identification by agent.” [Martinson] The seen a trained U.S. Therefore, provide photocopy a of a birth 10, could was even if 109 S.Ct. 1581. certificate, and was unable to [Martinson] upon by many of the relied characteristics any photo nor was produce identification can as investigating officers be labelled any that produce he able to identification drug profile, in a courier these factors found showed his address.4 factors must still be in their total considered (9) way verifying at The had no determining suspicion. officers ity when reasonable certificate was

the scene whether the birth correct identification. [Martinson’s] case, argues In the instant the state (10) Northwest ticket was also a one- The that the narcotics officers had sufficient rea ticket, only two way for travel Phoenix suspicion to Martinson and sonable detain days before. Terry stop, listing following conduct a (11) in the officers that the articulable facts which the state asserts told [Martinson] trip suspicion: ticket was for a different totality amount to reasonable Northwest their (9) (10) copy produce photo airport; attempting police; did of his to avoid not the making inexplicable certificate, walking copy diversions while of his but rather a certified birth (11) through airport; appearing extremely according to the trial court’s birth certificate manner; nervous; (12) dressing in an unusual findings The court also notes that of fact. trial (13) making about reasons false statements photo for air trav- identification was not However, 9.4(e), trip. § LaFave at 169-72. for detention. el at the time of Martinson’s complete not a list of all set this is characteristics profiles forth in the various used law enforce- ment officials. returning he was from even assertion that facts which are consistent with than the one days activity only for travel two innocent cannot form the basis for though it was suspicion justify Terry stop. with the reasonable before and thus was consistent Supreme Court has that while having been for the out- held Northwest ticket each factor is consistent inno- leg trip of the from which he had individual bound travel, just together cent all of the factors returned. suspicion, stating: amount to reasonable (12) It been more economical would have course, could, of “there be circumstances bought for to have one round- [Martinson] wholly might justify which lawful conduct trip traveling if ticket he was fact for suspicion activity that criminal was afoot.” job as he interview he said was. 441, Georgia, Reid v. 100 S.Ct. (13) The two tickets were for travel on (1980). 2752, 65 L.Ed.2d airlines knew different which the officers agree We with the state’s that all practices drug assertion to be consistent with the presented totality give facts their couriers. suspicion justifying rise to reasonable (14) the officers that he told [Martinson] Terry stop. none While of these factors are trips recently. several had made Arizona independently suspicious, the U.S. (15) the officers that he [Martinson] told clearly Court has stated “innocent” fac- gone to Arizona to look for work which totality, tors in their in- combined with the way did not seem to fit with his use of one vestigating experience in apprehend- officer’s positive and his lack of tickets identifica- traffickers, ing drug can be sufficient bases tion. finding suspicion. Id. Similar- (16) unusually [Martinson] was nervous ly, activity we have also stated that “innocent during the conversation with his hands justify might of criminal activi- shaking trembling. and his voice Johnson, ty.” State N.W.2d 826- argues The state also the court of ,27 (Minn.1989) Sokolow, (citing 490 U.S. at appeals totality did consider the 1581). presented No evidence was circumstances when it found there was suggesting method the detention no reasonable to conduct the prolonged overly intrusive so as to be stop. Finally, the state asserts that this is violative of Martinson’s Fourth Amendment profile not a courier case. sum, rights other manner. investigating expertise officers used their contrast, argues that .the apprehending drug traffickers and we hold above-stated cannot for facts be the basis that, instance, particular in this the officers suspicion wholly reasonable because are suspicion suspect to reasonable Martin- activity consistent with innocent if and even possession drugs. son of of totality they considered in their do not create suspicion illegal activity. of Martinson also judgment Reversed and of conviction rein- notes that upon several the facts relied are stated. drug courier characteristics. Martinson fur- ther asserts that the officers conducted PAGE, (dissenting) Justice Terry stop the because he to refused consent respectfully I question dissent. The be- to search of luggage, his which is an fore us is stopped whether the officers who impermissible basis for a seizure. objective suspi- Martinson had an reasonable illegal justifies state is correct in its assertion that a cion of conduct which suspicion stop. determination of establishing re- The burden of quires totality that the court objectively consider the reasonable1 is on Sokolow, And, states, the circumstances. See the state. as the court a deter- Williams, 1581; 109 S.Ct. 525 N.W.2d at mination of whether the has state met its However, 547. by examining Martinson is incorrect burden is to be made the totali- Ohio, which, Terry 1. See together v. ulable facts taken with rational facts, (1968) (to justify reasonably 20 L.Ed.2d 889 inferences from warrant .those intrusion”). police stop, "point specific must to artic- and by the as observed ty the circumstances officers, the officer’s given

investigating deceased, by Nancy Nelson, FIECK, Dale me, experience.2 It seems training and Fieck, of Brandon conservator burden, however, the state to meet its Respondent, for the offi- foundation provide must some on, any that the facts relied cer’s claim case, suspicion of create a reasonable given ASSOCIATES, BRANDRUP & INC. state say, is illegal conduct. That Mutual Reinsurance Grinnell it about the officer’s articulate what is must Relators, Company, experience, coupled with the training and Morton, Alyssa Wylma conservator of on, creates a reasonable relied facts Morton, Respondent. illegal Absent such suspicion of conduct. reviewing properly court showing, how can a No. C0-98-812. suspicion is rea- analyze the officer’s whether of Minnesota. Court sonable,3 especially in when the officer cases face, which, ap- on its relying on conduct is July activity? innocent be consistent with pears to consis- every combination acts Jardine, O’Brien, If Koep, Logan Kerry C. & activity used to form legal with can be P.L.L.P., Paul, tent St. for Relators. illegal for reasonable

the basis Carlson, Muir, Heuel, R. Carlson & James person walking activity, every then each and Rochester, P.A., Envall, R. Spelhaug, Ronald airport subject being through an Butler, Clure, Eaton, Michelson, Ferguson & the framers of stopped. I do not believe that P.A., Duluth, Respondent Wyl- Munger, Minnesota States or the either United ma Morton. subject innocent intended to Constitutions intrusions. governmental to such citizens case, sepa- officers relied on 16

In this reason- support their claim of rate facts individually, suspicion. When viewed able ORDER. facts supporting each of these the conduct files, pro- upon all records and Based activity. appears to involve innocent Viewed herein, ceedings it is totality, it is not clear what in their that the deci- IT HEREBY ORDERED IS apparently innocent this collection of about Compensation Court of the Workers’ sion suggests that Martinson was en- acts that 14,1998, be, and the same Appeals April filed illegal Requiring the state gaged conduct. See is, opinion. Minnesota without affirmed foundation, beyond the conclu- to offer some 136.01, Appellate Procedure of Civil Rules facts, statement, 16 known sory that these 1(b). subdivision training experi- coupled officers’ is award- employee’s conservator Deceased ence, the officers lead the conclusion that attorney fees. ed $400 too much to suspicion, is not here indicates A review of the record ask. BY THE COURT: provided. no such foundation was Page Alan C. /s/ Therefore, I dissent. Page Alan C. Justice

Associate us, Sokolow, government, we’re we're from "Trust States v. See United 2. (1989). help you.” L.Ed.2d 1 S.Ct. here to 1581. made, Indeed, showing such when no is, essence, asking reviewing court to: state

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Martinson

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Jul 16, 1998

Citation: 581 N.W.2d 846

Docket Number: C1-96-1947

Court Abbreviation: Minn.