From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Apr 3, 1980
291 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 1980)

Summary

reversing an order erroneously suppressing evidence seized in a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle after the police lawfully approached the defendant's car, smelled burning marijuana and saw a marijuana pipe being passed

Summary of this case from State v. Schinzing

Opinion

No. 51072.

April 3, 1980.

Appeal from the District Court, Brown County, Noah S. Rosenbloom, J.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. T. Rodenberg, County Atty., Clark A. Tuttle, III, Asst. County Atty., New Ulm, for appellant.

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Robert Goodell, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.


This is a pretrial appeal by the state, pursuant to R. 29.03, subd. 1, R.Crim.P., from an order of the district court suppressing evidence in a criminal prosecution. The issue raised by the state is whether the district court erred in concluding that the police violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in obtaining the evidence in question. We remand for rehearing.

The district court concluded that defendant's custodial arrest for the petty misdemeanor of possessing a small amount of marijuana was illegal and that under State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. 1977), the arresting officer could not justify his search of the defendant's car as being incident to a lawful arrest. Our examination of the record suggests that the district court may have been correct in its conclusion but that the search of the car was justified by the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1979); State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1978); City of St. Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104, 244 N.W.2d 43 (1976); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 205 N.W.2d 509 (1973). However, the prosecutor, while relying on this theory on appeal, apparently did not clearly present this alternative to the district court. Accordingly, we remand for rehearing, at which the district court will be given the opportunity to rule on this issue.

Remanded for rehearing.


Summaries of

State v. Armstrong

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Apr 3, 1980
291 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 1980)

reversing an order erroneously suppressing evidence seized in a warrantless search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle after the police lawfully approached the defendant's car, smelled burning marijuana and saw a marijuana pipe being passed

Summary of this case from State v. Schinzing

reversing suppression of small amount of marijuana found in defendant's vehicle during a search incident to arrest and remanding for an additional hearing because the district court may have correctly determined that the vehicle search was justified under the automobile exception

Summary of this case from State v. Dickenson

remanding for rehearing when search-incident-to-arrest exception did not apply but the search of the defendant's car might have been justified by the automobile exception

Summary of this case from State v. Jackson
Case details for

State v. Armstrong

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Gary Lee ARMSTRONG, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Apr 3, 1980

Citations

291 N.W.2d 918 (Minn. 1980)

Citing Cases

State v. Veigel

We need not decide whether the fact that the glove compartment was locked significantly lessened the…

State v. Schinzing

His discovery of marijuana in the ashtray gave him probable cause to believe that he would find marijuana…