David Brechler was arrested for possession of cocaine and marijuana. The trial court granted Brechler's motion to suppress evidence seized from the stopped car in which he was a passenger. We affirm.

FACTS

In December 1986 about 8:20 p.m., Sheriff's Deputies Ron Deckard and Gerhard Wehr were on routine patrol, northbound on U.S. 65, just north of Glenville, when they passed a southbound car which they saw swerve within its lane of travel. Deckard turned and followed the car, staying about one car length behind. The car pulled into a gas station and stopped with the patrol car behind it. The officers then turned on their flashing red lights and takedown lights. The gas station was visibly closed.

Deckard testified he saw Brechler, the passenger, moving around "furtively" and bending over. The deputies approached the car.

Wehr walked to the passenger's side and, with the aid of a flashlight, saw a six pack of beer behind the passenger seat. He removed the six-pack from the car. Five bottles were empty, and the sixth bottle was open and had about a half cup of beer in it.

When Wehr asked Brechler to step out, he saw a marijuana cigarette lying on the passenger seat, and a mirror protruding from under the passenger's seat. Wehr examined the mirror and found a line of white powder and a razor blade on it. At that point, Brechler was placed under arrest. A cursory search of the car yielded a marijuana pipe and lighter in a compartment by the shift lever. Brechler was taken to the Law Enforcement Center, where a jailer searched him and found a paper containing white powder which the BCA analyzed as containing methamphetamine (speed). The powder on the mirror contained cocaine.

ISSUES

Was the evidence suppressed by the trial court the result of an illegal investigatory stop?

ANALYSIS

The fourth amendment applies to seizures of the person, including brief investigatory stops such as the stop of the vehicle in this case. A limited investigative stop is lawful if the officer is able to articulate that he had a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981).

The police saw only that a car swerved on the road. The car neither left the road nor crossed the center line, but stayed in its lane. There was no driving conduct suggesting criminal activity. Based on that single observation, the police turned around and followed at about one car length. All that subsequently followed could easily be inferred to have been engendered by the presence of a police car in such proximity.

The trial court could conclude that the occupants of the car, aware that they were under close scrutiny, slowed, signaled for more than one possible turn and then chose a closed gas station as a stopping place in response to the presence of the tailgating police; they had not met the test of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).

As recently as December 1986, our Court of Appeals said:

A police officer may make an investigatory stop if, considering the totality of the circumstances, he has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity.

Schull v. Commissioner, 398 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986).

The police did not order the driver to stop, because they did not need to; their extremely close presence could have precipitated the stop. What followed was a seizure; once the flashing red lights and "take down" lights were activated, the occupants of the car were no longer free to leave.

After seeing only a swerve, the officers engendered a stop that was the product of whim and caprice. Because the stop was improper, all that followed, including the search of the vehicle and the seizure of the controlled substance, was done in violation of Brechler's fourth amendment rights.

DECISION

The trial court's order that the fruits of the search be suppressed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

State v. Brechler

Minnesota Court of Appeals

Sep 22, 1987

412 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)

holding that single swerve within one's own lane is insufficient to establish reasonable, articulable suspicion

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

holding that evidence of single swerve did not provide a sufficient basis for a stop

Summary of this case from State v. Just

holding that after only seeing the vehicle swerve once within its lane, the stop "was the product of whim and caprice"

Summary of this case from State v. Saxton

concluding that, because officers' conduct had "engendered" stop, stop was not justified

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

ruling investigatory stop not justified when vehicle only swerved on the road, but neither left the road nor crossed the center line

Summary of this case from State v. Jackson

affirming suppression of evidence used to charge passenger with possession of cocaine and marijuana on the ground that, absent any driving conduct suggesting criminal activity, officer who "saw only that a car swerved on the road" lacked a basis for stopping the car

Summary of this case from State v. Thunder

In Brechler, this court held that the stop of a vehicle was unlawful because "the arresting officers only observed the driver swerve once within his lane of travel, and articulated no other driving behavior or criminal activity."

Summary of this case from Kruse v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety

reasoning that a driver's conduct could have been caused by the presence of a police car following in close proximity

Summary of this case from Tomlinson v. Comm'r of Public Safety

In Brechler, this court affirmed the district court's suppression of evidence obtained from a vehicle search because there was no particularized and objective basis for the investigatory stop, which was the product of whim and caprice because the police "engendered" or "precipitated" the stop by following about one car length after observing the vehicle swerve inside the lane.

Summary of this case from State v. Clark

In Brechler, this court noted that some driving conduct may, in fact, be "engendered by the presence of a police car" in close proximity to a suspect's vehicle.

Summary of this case from State v. Jackson

In Brechler, we held that an officer did not have a reasonable, articulable basis for initiating a traffic stop founded solely on observing a car swerve once in its lane.

Summary of this case from State v. Owens

In Brechler, the car pulled into a parking lot and stopped; the officers followed it into the lot and turned on their flashing red lights only after it had stopped.

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

In Brechler, this court held that the officers, by tailgating the suspect vehicle, "engendered a stop that was the product of whim and caprice."

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

In Brechler, after the defendant swerved slightly, a marked police car followed defendant's car at about one car-length until the defendant pulled into a visibly closed gas station.

Summary of this case from State v. Siemer

State v. Brechler

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

FACTS

ISSUES

ANALYSIS

DECISION

State v. Brechler

State v. Brechler

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

State v. Brechler

Summary

Opinion

OPINION

FACTS

ISSUES

ANALYSIS

DECISION

State v. Brechler

State v. Brechler

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations