Preview:

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mustafaa Naji Fort, petitioner, Appellant. C2-01-1732, Supreme Court, May 1, 2003.

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C2-01-1732

Court of Appeals Page, J. State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Filed: May 1, 2003 Office of Appellate Courts Mustafaa Naji Fort, petitioner, Appellant.

SYLLABUS Police expansion of a routine traffic stop beyond the underlying justification for the stop violates Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution unless there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity beyond the traffic offense. Evidence obtained as a result of a search based on consent obtained by exploitation of an impermissibly expanded traffic stop must be suppressed. Reversed. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc. OPINION PAGE, Justice. This case arises from appellant Mustafaa Naji Fort's appeal of a court of appeals' decision reversing an order to suppress cocaine found during a search of his person as part of a routine traffic stop. Fort was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the traffic stop. In suppressing the cocaine found during the search, the district court held that "in the context of a routine traffic stop, where police do not have an articulable basis to seek consent to search a passenger and fail to inform the passenger of the right to refuse consent to search, a subsequent search violates Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution." On appeal, the court of appeals
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/OP011732-0501.htm[4/16/2013 8:36:39 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mustafaa Naji Fort, petitioner, Appellant. C2-01-1732, Supreme Court, May 1, 2003.

reversed and remanded to the district court, holding that the district court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances as required by existing law. Exercising our independent authority to interpret our own state constitution, we conclude that in the absence of reasonable, articulable suspicion a consent-based search obtained by exploitation of a routine traffic stop that exceeds the scope of the stop's underlying justification is invalid. Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 519 N.W.2d 183, 185 (Minn. 1994). We therefore reverse. On March 17, 2001, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Fort, an 18-year-old, African-American male, was the passenger in a car stopped by two Minneapolis police officers for speeding and having a cracked windshield. The vehicle was stopped at the intersection of Broadway and Lyndale Avenues in north Minneapolis, a location the officers considered to be in a "high drug" area. At the time of the stop, the police officers were in a marked squad car with its emergency lights activated. These lights remained activated as the officers exited the vehicle and approached the stopped car. One officer approached the driver's side of the vehicle to speak to the driver, while the other officer approached the passenger's side to speak to Fort. This officer, in full uniform, was holding a flashlight and wearing a gun, mace, radio, and handcuffs on his belt. After determining that neither the driver nor Fort had a valid driver's license, the officers decided to tow the vehicle. The first officer escorted the driver to the squad car to speak with him. The second officer asked Fort to exit the vehicle, escorted Fort to the squad car, and began questioning him about drugs and weapons. Specifically, the officer asked Fort if there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle. Fort replied, "No, sir." The officer then asked, "Do you have any drugs or weapons on you?" Fort again replied, "No, sir." Finally, the officer asked, "Would you mind if I searched you for drugs or weapons?" Fort answered, "No, sir." The officer did not inform Fort that he had a right to refuse the search request or that he was free to leave without being searched. At the suppression hearing, the officer testified that before he began questioning Fort he noticed Fort was nervous and avoided eye contact. He further testified that he spoke to Fort in a normal tone of voice and intended to offer Fort a ride home, although he never informed Fort of his intent. In order to conduct the search, the officer had Fort place his hands on the squad car and then performed a pat-down. During the search, the officer felt and removed from one of Fort's pockets several small, hard lumps, which he suspected to be crack cocaine. Fort was subsequently arrested. Fort was charged with fifth-degree felony possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Minn.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/OP011732-0501.htm[4/16/2013 8:36:39 PM]

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Mustafaa Naji Fort, petitioner, Appellant. C2-01-1732, Supreme Court, May 1, 2003.

Stat.

Download OP011732-0501.pdf

Minnesota Law