From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Vohnoutka

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 9, 1980
292 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. 1980)

Summary

holding that when police “did not stop or otherwise temporarily seize defendant's car,” an officer's use of his flashlight to look into the car was not a search implicating the occupant's constitutional rights

Summary of this case from Dolores v. Comm'r Safety

Opinion

No. 51149.

May 9, 1980.

Appeal from the District Court, Scott County, John M. Fitzgerald, J.

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. Kathleen Morris, County Atty., Shakopee, for appellant.

O'Neill, Goggins Traxler and Robert O. O'Neill, New Prague, 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, R.Crim.P., from an order of the district court suppressing evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds in a felony prosecution of defendant for possession of a large amount of marijuana. We reverse the suppression order and remand for trial.

At 5 a. m. on August 17, 1979, when it was still dark outside, police officers saw the driver of a motor vehicle shut off the lights of the car and drive it into the parking lot of a visibly closed service station. The officers drove behind the car, which was stopped, and defendant got out and approached the officers. While one officer asked defendant if there was anything wrong (defendant said that there wasn't), the other officer routinely walked up to defendant's car and shined his flashlight through the window into the passenger compartment to see if there was anyone in the car. When he did so, the officer observed suspected marijuana in open view. A subsequent search of the car resulted in the discover of marijuana and hashish; more marijuana was seized from defendant in a search incident to his arrest.

The district court suppressed all the evidence seized from defendant on the ground that the initial flashlight-aided visual check of the passenger compartment was a search which was not based on probable cause.

Professor LaFave's treatise contains an excellent discussion of the cases dealing with the use of a flashlight to permit an officer to see inside a motor vehicle. 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 2.2(b) (1978). It appears from that discussion that courts have consistently upheld the use of a flashlight by a police officer to look through a window into an automobile provided the officer's position vis-a-vis the vehicle has not been unlawfully acquired (as when the car is unlawfully stopped).

Our cases are consistent with this approach. Thus, for example, in State v. Landon, 256 N.W.2d 89 (Minn. 1977), we upheld against a Fourth Amendment challenge the practice of police officers routinely shining flashlights through the windows of cars lawfully stopped for speeding.

In the instant case the officer did not stop or otherwise temporarily seize defendant's car. Rather, the defendant had already stopped the car when the officers approached the car. As stated in 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 9.2(g) (1978), courts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.

Our case is similar to State v. Porter, 31 Or. App. 229, 570 P.2d 111 (1977), where the court reversed an order suppressing marijuana found in a flashlight-aided visual check of a parked car by an officer standing in a lawful vantage place. In so doing the court ruled that it was unnecessary to determine if the officer would have been justified in stopping the car, because it was not necessary for the officer to stop the car or temporarily seize it in order to get into a position from which he made his observations.

In our case defendant had already stopped his car and the officers approached him for a legitimate reason. If, as the officers approached, defendant had driven off and the officers had followed him and stopped him, then we would be faced with the issue of whether there was justification for a temporary seizure. However, defendant did not drive off and a temporary seizure was unnecessary. Here, as in Porter, there was no temporary seizure of the car and the officer clearly had a right to be where he was when he looked through the window into the passenger compartment.

What the officer saw gave him probable cause to believe that a search of the car would result in the discovery of marijuana. Under the motor-vehicle exception to the warrant requirement, the officer, armed as he was with probable cause, had a right to enter the car, seize the marijuana and search for more. The discovery of the marijuana also justified the arrest of defendant and the incidental custodial search of his person.

Reversed and remanded for trial. Pursuant to R. 29.03, subd. 2(8), R.Crim.P., defendant is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $400.


Summaries of

State v. Vohnoutka

Supreme Court of Minnesota
May 9, 1980
292 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. 1980)

holding that when police “did not stop or otherwise temporarily seize defendant's car,” an officer's use of his flashlight to look into the car was not a search implicating the occupant's constitutional rights

Summary of this case from Dolores v. Comm'r Safety

holding that when a police officer shined a flashlight into a stopped car from a place where the officer had the right to be, there was no seizure

Summary of this case from State v. Layman

holding that it is not a seizure for officers to approach a vehicle in a visibly closed service station and shine a flashlight into the vehicle

Summary of this case from State v. Rulford

holding that no seizure of vehicle occurred because vehicle was already stopped, defendant did not try to drive away, and officer had a right to walk up to vehicle, which is where officer was when he observed marijuana

Summary of this case from State v. Vonderharr

finding no seizure occurred when defendant was in a stopped car when the officers approached

Summary of this case from James v. Commissioner of Public Safety

concluding that an officer's use of a flashlight to look inside a parked vehicle was not unconstitutional because the car's occupant was not seized and the officer had a right to look into the passenger compartment to check for other occupants

Summary of this case from State v. Starnes

concluding that officer's use of flashlight was lawful when the officer's routine practice was to walk up to a vehicle to see whether another passenger was present

Summary of this case from State v. Bonds

concluding that no seizure occurred when officer approached vehicle and shined flashlight into passenger compartment after observing driver shut lights off, drive into closed service station, and stop

Summary of this case from State v. Clark

concluding no seizure occurred when officer approached vehicle and shined flashlight into passenger compartment after observing driver shut lights off, drive into closed service station, and stop

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

concluding that no seizure occurred when officer approached vehicle and shined flashlight into passenger compartment after observing driver shut lights off, drive into closed service station, and stop

Summary of this case from State v. Darling

concluding no seizure when officer walked to vehicle and shined flashlight into passenger compartment, after observing driver shut the lights off, drive into closed service station, and stop

Summary of this case from Beckrich v. Commissioner of Public Safety

In Vohnoutka, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a defendant was not temporarily seized when officers drove behind the defendant's car-which had entered a closed service station-and "asked [the] defendant if there was anything wrong."

Summary of this case from State v. Starnes

discussing that "courts have consistently upheld the use of a flashlight by a police officer to look through a window into an automobile," so long as the officer's position was lawfully obtained

Summary of this case from State v. Bonds

noting that police may approach and talk to a driver sitting in an already stopped car

Summary of this case from State v. Davis

observing that officer may interact with automobile driver sitting alone in deserted parking lot

Summary of this case from State v. Stapleton

noting that "courts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car"

Summary of this case from State v. Christensen

In Vohnoutka, the police officers drove in behind a car that was parked with its headlights off in the vicinity of a closed service station.

Summary of this case from State v. Demars

stating that it is not a seizure to walk up to a person standing in a public place or sitting in an already stopped car

Summary of this case from State v. Hollins

noting "that courts have consistently upheld the use of a flashlight by a police officer to look through a window into an automobile provided the officer's position * * * has not been unlawfully acquired"

Summary of this case from State v. Hanson

explaining that generally an officer does not seize a person by simply walking up and talking to a person standing in a public place

Summary of this case from State v. Hasselbacher

In State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756, a police officer walked up to a car which had just been parked in a visibly closed service station and shined the flashlight in the car, thereby observing a large quantity of marijuana.

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

State v. Vohnoutka

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Randall George VOHNOUTKA, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: May 9, 1980

Citations

292 N.W.2d 756 (Minn. 1980)

Citing Cases

State v. Starnes

State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999); see State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756, 757 (Minn.…

State v. Fisher

Similarly, an officer does not necessarily effect a seizure merely by approaching and speaking with a person…