Does Being in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time Allow the Police to Search You? Minnesota Supreme Court Says No
Earlier this week, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a conviction obtained against a Minneapolis teenager for unlawfully possessing a firearm as a minor In the Matter of the Welfare of C.T.B. The court held that police lacked the reasonable articulable suspicion necessary to search the teen because mere proximity to a suspect in an alleged crime is not enough to support a warrantless pat-frisk. The Court rejected the idea that a valid frisk of one person can be stretched into valid frisks of nearby people, clarifying how the all-important “Terry stop” exception operates in Minnesota.
On December 27, 2022, police officers responded to a report that a man in a yellow and black jacket had pointed a handgun at people at a light-rail station in Minneapolis. Within minutes they found the suspect inside a pizza restaurant where several others, including 16-year-old C.T.B., were standing nearby. Police stated that, based on their general experience, guns are passed within groups when police approach, so an officer pat-frisked C.T.B. and found a handgun in his pocket.
The district court ruled the frisk of C.T.B. was a permissible expansion of the original suspect’s Terry stop. A “Terry stop,” also known as a stop and frisk, involves police briefly detaining a person based on reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. The concept of Terry stops comes from the landmark Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which has allowed police to briefly detain, search, and question someone without needing full probable cause required for an arrest. Importantly, Terry stops allow a police officer to conduct a pat-frisk of a person to discover weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous and that criminal activity may be afoot.
On appeal of his conviction, C.T.B. argued the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of the handgun that arose from the pat-frisk. While the court denied his appeal and affirmed the conviction, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. By doing so, the MN Supreme Court corrected the lower courts and ruled that a Terry stop cannot be expanded to other people based on mere proximity to the original suspect. Moving forward, stop-frisks can only be justified when police have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Being near another person suspected of a crime is simply not enough to justify a warrantless search.
For Minnesotans, this means that your constitutional rights protecting you from invalid searches do not disappear simply because you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. This ruling also reminds us to scrutinize the facts officers rely upon in obtaining evidence because there are strict limits on when police can detain, search, and question someone without needing the full probable cause required for an arrest. While Terry stops remain a powerful law enforcement tool, this new ruling draws a firm boundary around when they can be used in Minnesota.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Attorney Woodbury, Criminal Defense Lawyer Minnesota, DWI Attorney Minnesota.