The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Waltz (Decided March 21, 2022, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that the police get to search the car and arrest the driver when the occupied vehicle reeks of marijuana.
In Waltz, the Montevideo police received a report that a female was passed out in a running car in a convenience store parking lot. The first officer to arrive approached the car and after some effort, awoke the unconscious driver, Ms Waltz. The officer had to knock on the window and shine his flashlight in her eyes to awaken Ms. Waltz.
While standing next to the car, the officer smelled the odor of marijuana and when the defendant rolled down her window, the odor was even more intense.
Two other officers arrived together in a second patrol car. They approached the car and confirmed that there was a strong marijuana smell.
The Defendant was asked to exit the car and the vehicle was searched. The police found a plastic grocery bag containing approximately ten grams of marijuana.
The police asked Waltz whether she had been using marijuana, and she admitted to smoking a blunt a few hours before. Suspecting that Waltz was under the influence of marijuana or a controlled substance, the sergeant asked Waltz to perform some field sobriety tests and conducted a preliminary breath test, which revealed a zero alcohol concentration. The sergeant arrested Waltz based on suspicion that she had been driving while impaired and provided her with a Miranda warning.
The Defendant was charged with DWI and possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Walz moved to suppress the evidence of marijuana that police seized from her car and her admissions to the police that she had smoked marijuana.
Waltz claimed that the police had no basis to detain her for a criminal investigation or to search her car once they determined that she was not in distress. And she asserted that the police unlawfully interrogated her about her marijuana use without providing a Miranda warning. Waltz argued that these constitutional violations require suppression of the drug evidence found in her car and on her person, the evidence of her impairment, her statements to the police, and any evidence obtained as a result of her statements.
The district court denied her motion to suppress and on appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed stating:
"In some circumstances, the police may seize an individual without a search warrant. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). One exception to the warrant requirement permits limited investigatory seizures. State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 363 (Minn. 2004)."
"Under this exception, a police officer may briefly detain an individual when the officer “has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Timberlake, 744N.W.2d 390,393 (Minn. 2008) (quotingIllinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119,123 (2000)) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). But an investigatory detention “may become invalid if it becomes ‘intolerable’ in its ‘intensity or scope.’” Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d at 364 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 17-18). Thus, each subsequent intrusion “must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances that rendered the initiation of the investigation permissible.” State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125, 135 (Minn. 2002). And to expand the scope of an investigatory seizure, the police must have independent probable cause or a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify the subsequent intrusion. Id. (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 20-21)."
"Here, the district court concluded, and we agree, that the police had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity that justified a limited investigatory detention. Waltz was sleeping in a running car in a public place at 11:00 p.m. When the sergeant approached the car, he smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana. Waltz was difficult to rouse; the sergeant was required to bang on the car window and shine his flashlight in her eyes. The marijuana smell became more intense when Waltz finally rolled her window down. And the two other officers who arrived to assist with the investigation confirmed that they could smell marijuana even while standing three feet away from Waltz’s car. Given these facts, the officers had reason to suspect that Waltz was driving while impaired and that she possessed marijuana in a motor vehicle. Either of these suspicions provided a basis for an investigatory detention. See State v. Doren, 654 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Minn. App.2002) (stating that a car passenger’s “extraordinary nervousness,” the smell of burned marijuana emanating from the passenger’s location, and the passenger’s appearance of being under the influence together provide a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 26, 2003).
"Waltz argues that even if the initial seizure was valid, the officers unlawfully expanded the scope of the stop by searching her car. The state responds that the officers’ actions were permissible under another exception to the warrant requirement—the automobile exception."
"The automobile exception allows police to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” State v. Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). Determining whether there is probable cause requires an objective inquiry that evaluates the totality of the circumstances in a particular case. Id. These circumstances include the reasonable inferences that law enforcement officers may make based on their training and experience. State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358, 362 (Minn. 2011)."
"The state points out that “[t]he detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.” State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn. App. 1984); see also State v. Wicklund, 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (Minn. 1973). And the state notes that undercurrent Minnesota law, the smell of marijuana provides probable cause for a vehicle search. See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (stating that the automobile exception applies when an officer smells marijuana emanating from a car)."
"While we do not disagree with the state’s summary of the law, we note that the factual circumstances here included more than an odor of marijuana. Again, Waltz was found soundly sleeping in a running car near midnight. The car was parked in a convenience store parking lot. When finally awakened, Waltz said that she was meeting someone. Three trained police officers smelled a strong odor of marijuana—including fresh marijuana—coming from the car. And Waltz admitted to smoking marijuana in the car earlier. Based on all of these facts, the officers reasonably believed that the car would contain contraband. Because the officers had probable cause to search, their search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement."
Moral Of The Story: You snooze. You lose.
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minneapolis DWI Lawyer, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
