Minneapolis DWI Attorney F. T. Sessoms Blogs on Minnesota DWI: This Week's Featured Minnesota DWI Case

The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Horn (Decided June 11, 2018, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police cannot ask for consent to search your vehicle if the search is unrelated to the traffic stop. 

In Horn, Minnesota State Patrol Sergeant Thostenson observed Mr. Horn driving an automobile and stopped him because he was not wearing a seatbelt. Sergeant Thostenson asked Horn for proof of insurance. Horn gave Sergeant Thostenson an expired insurance card and did not look for any other proof of insurance in his vehicle. Sergeant Thostenson thought this behavior was odd and testified that some people avoid opening areas where insurance cards are normally kept because they have contraband or weapons in those areas. Sergeant Thostenson observed that Horn avoided eye contact, appeared excessively nervous, talked very fast and was slow to respond to some questions. Sergeant Thostenson also smelled a faint odor of marijuana coming from Horn's vehicle.

Sergeant Thostenson returned to his squad car, printed a ticket for the seatbelt violation, returned to Horn's car, and asked Horn to step out of his vehicle. Sergeant Thostenson noticed that Horn's front teeth were discolored and decaying. He testified that such conditions indicated drug use. Sergeant Thostenson explained the seatbelt citation to Horn, handed Horn the ticket, and asked Horn if he had any questions before the sergeant let him go. Horn responded, "No." Sergeant Thostenson then asked Horn if he could take a quick look in Horn's vehicle. Horn agreed to the ensuing vehicle search.

During the search of Horn's vehicle, Sergeant Thostenson found a zippered container, which he recognized as the type of container commonly used for drugs and paraphernalia. He opened the container and found a pipe and methamphetamine inside. Horn admitted that he had used methamphetamine earlier that morning. Horn agreed to perform field sobriety tests and performed poorly on the tests. Sergeant Thostenson arrested Horn, obtained a search warrant to test his blood, and the blood sample was positive for methamphetamine.

Mr. Horn was charged with DWI and possession of a controlled substance.  The defense moved to suppress all of the evidence arguing that Sergeant Thostenson's incremental intrusion of asking to search Horn's vehicle was unrelated to the purpose of the stop for failure to wear a seatbelt and that the circumstances did not otherwise justify the request to search the vehicle. Horn therefore argued that the evidence obtained as a result of the search should be suppressed.

At the suppression hearing, Sergeant Thostenson admitted that after he handed Horn the seatbelt-violation ticket, Horn was free to go, but that he nonetheless asked to search Horn's car after he gave Horn the ticket.  

The district court denied Horn's motion to suppress, concluding that "the odor of marijuana along with the other factors was sufficient to justify" the trooper's request to search the vehicle.  On appeal, however, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court  noting:

"When a search is conducted pursuant to consent . . . , neither probable cause nor a warrant is required." State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 519 (Minn. 1999). However, a "suspect's consent, taken alone, is insufficient to permit expansion of a routine traffic stop; the police officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of further criminal activity in order to request to expand the stop.   State v. Volkman, 675 N.W.2d 337, 341 (Minn. App. 2004)."

"Horn contends that any suspicions that might have justified the request to search his vehicle were dispelled prior to the request. He notes that Sergeant Thostenson "had completed the initial stop and immediately before asking to search the car, he had admittedly concluded that Horn was 'free to go.' Horn therefore argues that 'regardless of anything [Sergeant Thostenson] may have observed prior to handing [him] the ticket, when he asked to search the car, no reasonable suspicion remained.' Horn concludes that "because the search of [his] car was invalid, the fruits of the search and all related evidence must be suppressed."

The Minnesota Court of Appeals justifiably ruled in favor of the Defendant, stating:

"We would have a difficult time concluding that Sergeant Thostenson articulated constitutionally adequate support for his request to search Horn's vehicle given his testimony that Horn was free to go before the request. Sergeant Thostenson's agreement that Horn was no longer seized when he asked to search Horn's vehicle significantly undercuts the state's argument that the trooper articulated reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that justified the request to search. In our view, this record does not support a conclusion that Sergeant Thostenson articulated reasonable suspicion justifying his request to search Horn's vehicle. We therefore hold that the search was unconstitutional and reverse the district court's order denying Horn's motion to suppress."

Moral Of The Story:  Never, ever, ever consent to a search! Ever!!

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a Minnesota DWI, or are facing a DWI forfeiture of your motor vehicle, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI questions.