MN: The totality of circumstances claimed to be RS were more innocent that suggesting criminality was afoot

“Altogether, the totality of the circumstances in this record do not amount to particularized suspicion. The officer acknowledged he did not have sufficient evidence to support a DUI investigation. The evidence at the suppression hearing consisted of ‘“otherwise perfectly legal or innocuous conduct or behavior”’ and not indicia of illegal drug activity. … Loberg’s detention and canine sniff were supported by no more than a generalized suspicion or an inarticulable hunch of criminal activity. The State has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy an exception to the search warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Sections 10 and 11, of the Montana Constitution. The evidence must be suppressed.” State v. Loberg, 2024 MT 188, 2024 Mont. LEXIS 941 (Aug. 27, 2024). (The suppression hearing evidence recounted in the opinion shows defense counsel went over and above in showing that nothing defendant allegedly did was suggestive of criminal activity and was innocent behavior. The court also was concerned that accepting the state’s argument would make nearly everyone subject to an extended stop without cause.)

Minnesota requires reasonable suspicion for a dog sniff during a traffic stop. The driver’s appearance supported it. “Trooper Bredsten testified that the scabs on the passenger’s pick marks [on her face] were ‘relatively recent’ and that she showed signs of ‘prolonged drug use,’ and under these circumstances, an officer could reasonably infer that the passenger had recently used drugs.” State v. Garding, 2024 Minn. LEXIS 458 (Aug. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Dog sniff, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.