MN: Arrest on an outstanding warrant was not sufficiently pretextual to violate Fourth Amendment

Defendant’s arrest on an outstanding bench warrant for something else, for which there was probable cause, was not sufficiently pretextual to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. State v. Jenkins, 782 N.W.2d 211 (2010)*:

With respect to Jenkins’ claim that the police misused the bench warrant to arrest him for the two murders, we first note that there can be no question that an arrest pursuant to a valid warrant is supported by probable cause and is therefore reasonable. Jenkins has not identified, and we have not found, any case in which we have held otherwise. Nor are we aware of any case in which we have looked beyond the validity of the warrant and examined law enforcement’s motive for executing the warrant, and we decline to do so in this case. Jenkins did not challenge the validity of the Crow Wing County bench warrant at the trial court, nor has he done so here. Further, the record before us does not contain anything that calls into question the validity of the bench warrant. Thus, we conclude that Jenkins’ arrest pursuant to that warrant was proper.

Defendant was not seized as officers talked to him and he kept walking away from them. He stopped, turned around, and returned with his hands in his pockets, and officers told him to take his hands out of his pockets. One officer told the other to hook him up (for safety reasons), and defendant removed his hands discarding cocaine. The seizure of the cocaine was not the result of a Fourth Amendment violation. State v. Hamilton, 36 So. 3d 209 (La. 2010).*

The lady who lived in the other half of a duplex who reported suspected drug dealing was presumptively reliable where she was named and remained there when the police arrived. State v. Brown, 35 So. 3d 1069 (La. 2010).*