Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Price

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

July 15, 2013

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Patrick Lynn Price, Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Anoka County District Court File No. 02-CR-11-3450

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Wendy A. Murphy, Jennifer Ann Nodes, East Bethel City Attorney, Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)

David Sjoberg, Sjoberg & Associates, P.A., Ham Lake, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge.

KLAPHAKE, Judge [*]

Appellant challenges his convictions for driving while impaired in violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 1(1), (5) (2010), arguing that the district court erred when it upheld the constitutionality of the stop of his vehicle. We affirm.

DECISION

Appellant Patrick Lynn Price challenges the district court's pretrial order refusing to suppress evidence, asserting that the deputy who stopped him: (1) did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, and (2) detained appellant longer than necessary.

I.

Appellant argues the deputy did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to initiate the stop because he neither personally observed appellant commit any criminal activity nor suspected appellant of any criminal activity.

Here, Anoka County Deputy Sheriff Nathan Arvidson was dispatched to investigate a report of a suspicious vehicle, made by a citizen informant, B.P., who reported that he saw a "guy driving a pickup, running back and forth going into different people's houses." B.P. identified the vehicle as a "grey Chevy" pickup truck, and indicated that he had last seen the vehicle backing into his driveway and that it was "still in the driveway." Arvidson responded to the area approximately six minutes later and observed a grey pickup truck approaching him. Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude Arvidson had a reasonable basis for stopping appellant's vehicle.

II.

Appellant next argues that the officer illegally expanded the scope of the stop when he directed appellant to pull into a driveway, blocked him from leaving, and continued to ask him questions. "[E]ach incremental intrusion during a stop must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered [the initiation of the stop] permissible." State v. Askerooth, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.