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. Davis

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

April 2, 2018

State of Minnesota, Respondent,
v.
Corey Davis, Jr., Appellant.

          Hennepin County District Court File No. 27-CR-15-17527

          Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda K. Jenny, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

          Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Adam Lozeau, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

          Considered and decided by Peterson, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ross, Judge.

         SYLLABUS

         When police stop and detain a person unconstitutionally and obtain information that leads them to search the area, the district court is not precluded from applying the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and suppressing evidence found during the search even if the defendant abandoned the evidence before police began the unconstitutional detention.

          OPINION

          ROSS, Judge

         Minneapolis Police officers following a car for turning without signaling believed that one of its passengers-appellant Corey Davis Jr.-had gotten out. An officer, who found it suspicious that Davis looked toward him and then looked away before turning to walk away, exited his squad car, approached Davis, grabbed him by the arm, handcuffed him, and began questioning him. After Davis commented about possessing drugs and being impaired from a previous gunshot injury, officers searched the area and discovered a handgun that they surmised Davis had tossed away. Davis was charged with and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm. Because the officer had no reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Davis, and because the officers exploited the stop and Davis's incriminating comments to decide to search the area, the district court should have applied the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine and suppressed evidence of the handgun. We therefore reverse Davis's conviction and remand.

         FACTS

         Police officers Brandon Bartholomew and Brandy Steberg were patrolling in north Minneapolis on a May 2015 morning when they saw a Chevy Tahoe about two blocks ahead of them turn without signaling. The officers momentarily lost sight of the Tahoe, and when they saw it again, it was pulling away from a curb. They saw a man, whom they later identified as Corey Davis Jr., standing in a yard. Officer Bartholomew deduced that Davis had been a passenger in the Tahoe. He saw Davis "look[] away from" the officers "very quickly, and also start[] walking very quickly away."

         Officer Bartholomew exited the squad car, and Officer Steberg continued to follow the Tahoe. Officer Bartholomew told Davis to stop. He then grabbed Davis by the arm, handcuffed him, and ordered him to sit on the curb as he questioned him. Davis said that a previous gunshot injury made it hard for him to bend his leg. He also said "that he had marijuana on him and that he had eaten it." And he suggested that he was the subject of arrest warrants.

         Officer Steberg eventually returned, and the two officers searched the area where they had first seen Davis standing. Officer Steberg found a .38 caliber handgun in a bush. Davis's fingerprints were on the gun, and the state charged him with possessing a firearm as an ineligible person.

         Davis challenged the constitutionality of the stop and moved the district court to suppress the evidence. The district court held that Officer Bartholomew lacked reasonable suspicion that Davis had committed any crime, and it therefore suppressed Davis's statements made during his illegal detention. But it denied Davis's motion to suppress evidence of the handgun, finding that the officers' decision to search the area rested on reasons other than Davis's statements.

         A jury found Davis guilty. This appeal follows.

         ISSUES

I. Did the district court clearly err by finding that the officer did not base his decision to search the area on information he obtained while he ...

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.