Minnesota Appeals Court: Avoiding Police Justifies Traffic Stop

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

A motorist who avoids a police car is inherently suspicious, according to a ruling handed down by the Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday. A three-judge panel found that even if the officer observed no illegal conduct, a traffic stop and interrogation is justified when a driver seems not to want to be around a patrol car.

On January 23, 2009 at around 3pm, Mario Pacheco had been driving in South Minneapolis. While on Minnehaha Avenue, two city police officers spotted Pacheco’s car, which pulled over and parked on the side of the road after signaling. The officers made a u-turn to get a better look at the vehicle. Returning to the scene about a minute later, they found the car once again driving. Pacheco again signaled, pulled over and parked. The officers conducted a traffic stop and cited Pacheco for driving on a canceled license, but Pacheco appealed on the grounds that police had no reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop.

A district court noted that Pacheco did not make eye contact with the police and that he had violated no traffic laws and therefore suppressed the evidence obtained from the illegal stop. A three-judge appellate panel disagreed, insisting that the officers had reasonable suspicion that a crime was taking place.

“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high,” Judge Renee L. Worke wrote in an unpublished opinion.

The appeals court had previously been of the opinion that evasive behavior did not justify a stop, but in 1989 the state supreme court overruled the appellate judges in a similar case, Minnesota v. Johnson.

“The district court apparently interpreted Johnson to require an officer to make eye contact with a driver in order for conduct to be considered evasive,” Worke explained. “This is a misinterpretation of Johnson. The supreme court never mandated eye contact as a requisite for evasive conduct. Rather, the supreme court’s discussion of the trooper’s eye contact with the defendant was made in an assessment of the basis for the trooper’s reasonable, articulable suspicion.”

At trial, the officers testified that pulling to the side of the road was behavior inconsistent with how an average citizen behaves and that he thought Pacheco might have been “casing businesses or residences in the neighborhood to burglarize them.” One officer insisted the stop was necessary “to investigate his behavior and to make sure that he wasn’t attempting to commit any crime.” The appeals court believed this was sufficient.

“Viewing the totality of the circumstances in this case, the suspicion caused by respondent twice abruptly parking his vehicle when followed by a squad car is strengthened when the car is traveling through an area that the officers consider to be a high-crime area,” Worke concluded. “Based on the conduct of respondent and the officers’ concern for the area where the stop occurred, the officers exhibited the requisite reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that the stop was invalid and suppressing all evidence gathered from the stop.”

A copy of the decision is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Minnesota v. Pacheco (Court of Appeals, State of Minesota, 7/27/2010)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 44 comments
  • Lumbergh21 Lumbergh21 on Jul 29, 2010

    If he had pulled over and remained parked - you know like if he was parking for some reason other than to avoid the police - there would have been no reasonable suspicion. It's the fact that he pulled over and parked then left after the police passed by then pulled over again a minute later after the police had circled back around behind him. the cops would have to be labotomized not to find that suspicious behavior.

    • See 3 previous
    • Steve65 Steve65 on Jul 29, 2010

      The only "precedent" set by this case is that repeatedly parking the moment you see a cop is reasonably and articuably suspicious. Your belief that it opens the door to random stops based on "feel" is specious. The "reasonable suspicion" precedent was set and sustained a long time ago. This ruling does not change it.

  • Johnny ro Johnny ro on Jul 29, 2010

    At least the cop does not seem to base the case on a falsification of the facts. Defendant is not questioning the fact pattern. Just relevance and legality of facts. Last one I remember here was with the cop saying something patently dubious and prevailing. It could have gone far worse for defendant, bullets flying and so on.

  • Rochester "better than Vinfast" is a pretty low bar.
  • TheMrFreeze That new Ferrari looks nice but other than that, nothing.And VW having to put an air-cooled Beetle in its display to try and make the ID.Buzz look cool makes this classic VW owner sad 😢
  • Wolfwagen Is it me or have auto shows just turned to meh? To me, there isn't much excitement anymore. it's like we have hit a second malaise era. Every new vehicle is some cookie-cutter CUV. No cutting-edge designs. No talk of any great powertrains, or technological achievements. It's sort of expected with the push to EVs but there is no news on that front either. No new battery tech, no new charging tech. Nothing.
  • CanadaCraig You can just imagine how quickly the tires are going to wear out on a 5,800 lbs AWD 2024 Dodge Charger.
  • Luke42 I tried FSD for a month in December 2022 on my Model Y and wasn’t impressed.The building-blocks were amazing but sum of the all of those amazing parts was about as useful as Honda Sensing in terms of reducing the driver’s workload.I have a list of fixes I need to see in Autopilot before I blow another $200 renting FSD. But I will try it for free for a month.I would love it if FSD v12 lived up to the hype and my mind were changed. But I have no reason to believe I might be wrong at this point, based on the reviews I’ve read so far. [shrug]. I’m sure I’ll have more to say about it once I get to test it.
Next