When Can Police Conduct a Pat Frisk?

Before the police can conduct a pat frisk, there must first be a lawful investigative stop. Police are allowed to temporarily detain a person or stop a car when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed. The standard is less than the probable cause required for an arrest but more than a mere whim or idle curiosity. The Fourth Amendment prohibits any unreasonable search and seizure. If the investigative stop is determined by a judge to be unlawful, any evidence seized by the police as a result of a pat frisk is inadmissible in court

 

What if the investigative stop by the police was lawful, can they still  conduct a pat frisk? Yes, but only under limited circumstances. The police must have a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous. If there is a reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous, police may conduct a pat-down of a person's outer clothing to discover any weapons that may be used to assault the officer or any person  standing nearby. The reason behind the pat frisk law is to allow the officer to continue the  investigation  without fear of physical harm.

 

What factors would justify an officer in conducting a protective weapons search?  A suspect's appearance and actions are  important factors. For  example, a  bulge in a coat pocket in the shape of a gun or evasive conduct by the suspect could justify a pat frisk. The officer's knowledge of the suspect's criminal history is also a factor such as  a prior conviction for a violent crime. The neighborhood and time of day of the investigative stop may also be  factors. The type of crime for which a suspect is stopped may lead an officer to believe that a person is armed and dangerous. Crimes such as  robbery, burglary, rape, and high volume drug trafficking crimes  often justify a protective weapons search by  police.

 

A pat search for weapons must be limited to the outer area of a person's clothing. The scope of the search is limited to an attempt to discover guns, clubs, knives or any hidden item that could pose a threat to officer safety. If the officer detects an object thought to be a weapon, he would be justified in reaching into the suspect's clothing or a pocket to remove the item.

 

What if the officer exceeds the lawful scope of a pat frisk and removes contraband? The search and seizure would be deemed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the evidence  inadmissible in court. If you have been a victim of an illegal pat frisk by the police, call Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Robert J. Shane now for a free phone consultation  at (612) 339-1024.  

Do I have a Right to Make a Phone Call from Jail?

Yes, any person who is newly admitted as an inmate to a jail facility in Minnesota has a right to make either a local or collect long-distance phone call. The right to make a phone call from jail allows you to contact either a family member or a significant other and applies during the admission process. Inmates are also allowed to keep in contact with family members or significant others during their jail confinement. These calls must be collect calls and the minimum amount of time allowed per phone call is 10 minutes.

 

What about making a call to an attorney? Police officers are required by Minnesota law to provide a person who is in custody with private telephone access to an attorney who is either retained or to whom the restrained person is interested in consulting at no charge to the inmate or to the attorney. Police officers are required to provide reasonable phone access at the request of the person. The phone consultation with an attorney must take place before any other proceedings in the case, including a court appearance.

 

Is there a criminal penalty for failure to comply with the law? Yes, it's a misdemeanor offense for a police officer to deny phone access to any person who is restrained in a local jail facility.

When Can I Be Charged with Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle?

It's  a felony offense in Minnesota for a driver to flee or to attempt to flee a police officer who is lawfully discharging his official duties when the driver knows or  reasonably  should know that he is being  pursued by a police officer.  The case normally begins by the officer attempting to execute a stop for  a traffic violation, a cancelled  or revoked driver's license, or for an outstanding warrant. The case usually involves  a driver increasing his speed to well over 100 mph combined with evasive driving conduct over a considerable distance.    The driver may eventually be stopped and arrested by the police or he may escape and avoid capture. If the suspect is arrested after the chase,  police will establish the identity of the driver. If the driver escapes, the police will follow up their investigation by using the plate number on the vehicle to track  the suspect to his residence for questioning in order to determine if he was the driver. 

 

The defense in a fleeing a peace officer case may focus on any of the following legal issues: (1) did the driver intentionally flee or attempt to flee the police officer; (2) was the officer lawfully discharging his official duty; (3) did the driver know or should he have known that he was being pursued by a police officer; and (4) was the suspect the same person who drove the vehicle on the date of the offense. If a suspect who escaped police pursuit is eventually caught, the police will attempt to gain an admission from him that he was in fact the driver. The suspect at this point should exercise his constitutional right to remain silent and refuse to answer any questions from the police or police investigators. The suspect in a fleeing case should never discuss the facts of the case with any third person as they could potentially testify against him at trial regarding his statements. Please  do not discuss your case on a jailhouse phone as the conversation may be recorded. 

 

If you, or someone you know, has been arrested for fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle, call Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Robert J. Shane now for the "Best Defense"  at (612) 339-1024. Mr. Shane has been defending the freedom of the accused since 1983.

The Best Defense in a Minnesota DWI Case

If your criminal defense attorney is  able to suppress the use of the blood, breath or urine test results  in your Minnesota DWI case, you will have found the key to winning your case. The use of a chemical test result by the prosecution is critical to a successful DWI prosecution. 

How does an experienced DWI attorney suppress the chemical test result? The defense lawyer will   file a motion with the court requesting that  the chemical test result not be allowed to be used  against you  at trial  on the grounds that the test result was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.   What does the suppression of the chemical test for intoxication mean for your case? If the judge grants the motion to suppress the evidence, the prosecution  will lose the use of powerful scientific evidence to prove your intoxication at trial. The only evidence left  over  will be your driving conduct,  field sobriety test result, if any,  and statements you may have made about  alcohol or drug use. You now have plea bargaining strength and a chance for an acquittal at trial.

How were my Fourth Amendment rights violated by the police? There are only two ways the police can obtain a warrantless search for  blood alcohol concentration or the presence of a controlled substance in your body. The first is by obtaining your consent to conduct a warrantless search. The  second is by proving emergency conditions existed at the time of arrest which would justify the police in not first obtaining a search warrant from a judge. If the police did  not obtain your consent to search and there was no emergency circumstance,  police must first obtain a search warrant. If they failed to do so, your Fourth Amendment rights were violated. 

If you, or someone you know, has been charged with a Minnesota DWI, call Minneapolis DWI defense attorney Robert J. Shane for the Best Defense  at (612) 339-1024 or visit his website for more information at http://www.criminallawyerminnesota.com/criminal-offenses/drunk-driving.html

When Can the Police Walk a Narcotics-Detection Dog Down the Hallway of my Apartment Building?

Police are required to have a "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of drug-related activity before they will be allowed to walk a trained narcotics-detection dog down the hallway  of your apartment building. The Minnesota Constitution protects   against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police. Evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure will be suppressed by the court and  can not be used against you at  trial. Suppression of the evidence is the price the police must pay for violating your constitutional rights. The  remedy  is designed to deter future police misconduct.

What  facts would create a reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug-related activity to support the use by  police of a narcotic-detection dog? Suspicion may be indicated by  a report of a high volume of short term traffic coming and leaving  the apartment. An observation that known drug users and drug dealers are visiting your apartment on a regular basis may create reasonable, articulable  suspicion.  A report by a citizen informant that drug paraphernalia was present in your apartment would provide a basis for conducting a dog sniff.  Knowledge by police that you were active in the use and sale of controlled substances would also be a factor. The suspicion required to use a narcotics detection dog  must be something more than a mere hunch by the police.

What happens if a narcotic-detection dog alerts to an odor of a controlled substance outside the door of my apartment? The police will draft an application for the issuance of a search warrant and submit the application and  warrant to a district court judge for approval. The warrant will allow the police to search the suspect and the apartment for evidence of controlled substances, paraphernalia, etc. A judge will review the search warrant affidavit to determine whether or not, under the totality of the circumstances, there is probable cause to believe controlled substances will be found in the apartment and on the person of the suspect.

What should you do if the police find controlled substances in your apartment during the execution of a search warrant? You will need to retain an experienced narcotics defense attorney to defend your freedom. The search warrant may be defective on the grounds that the police did not have reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the dog sniff used to support the issuance of the warrant. Call Minnesota criminal defense attorney Robert J. Shane for a free phone consultation at (612) 339-1024. Mr. Shane is a Minneapolis criminal defense attorney with  30 years of courtroom experience and a winning record.

Minnesota Tax Evasion Defense

Any person who willfully attempts to evade or to defeat a tax imposed by law is subject to criminal prosecution. A conviction for tax evasion under federal law is a felony offense and carries a fine of not more than $500,000.00 and imprisonment not to exceed 5 years.  

In order for the federal government to obtain a conviction for tax evasion, a prosecutor is  required  to prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) willfulness, (2) existence of a tax deficiency, and (3) an affirmative act constituting an attempt to evade or defeat payment of the tax. So what  affirmative acts are associated with  tax evasion? Some examples of tax evasion would include the following: concealing the nature, extent, and ownership of your assets by placing assets in the names of other people; dealing only in cash in order to avoid creating a financial record; maintaining no bank accounts;  falsely telling an IRS agent that you don't own any property; causing your obligations to be paid in the name of another person; failing to file tax returns; and paying creditors instead of the government.

 

The failure to file a tax return is not the same as the willful attempt to evade the payment of taxes. The willful failure to pay a tax when due is a misdemeanor offense under federal law, but the willful attempt to defeat and evade a tax is a more serious felony level offense and requires some affirmative action as mentioned in the above examples.  If you, or someone you know, has been charged in Minnesota with tax evasion, you will need an experienced criminal defense attorney to defend you freedom. Attorney Robert J. Shane has 30 years of  experience in defending the freedom of the accused. Call now for a free phone consultation at (612) 339-1024 or visit his website for more information at www.criminallawyerminnesota.com.  

Can Minor Be Forced to Take a Drug Test by the Police?

If you are a minor and are suspected of having taken a controlled substance, you have no legal obligation to submit to drug testing at the request of a police officer. The police are only interested in gathering evidence to use against you in a minor consumption criminal case.

Minnesota Arrest Warrants

What should you do if you suspect there is an outstanding warrant for your arrest? You may be able to find out if a warrant has been issued for your arrest by searching online in the county where the crime occurred. Many police and sheriff's departments across Minnesota post the names of persons who have active arrest warrants online as a service to the public

How Soon After an Arrest Do I See the Judge?

If you are arrested in Minnesota without a warrant you must be brought before a judge within 36 hours.

Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana in Minnesota

It's a crime to drive a car in Minnesota when a person is under the influence of a controlled substance. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=169A.20. Marijuana is defined in Minnesota as a Schedule I controlled substance. The punishment for a conviction for driving under the influence of marijuana can range from county jail time to imprisonment. Charges can vary  from a 4th Degree misdemeanor DWI to   felony DWI depending on the number of prior DWI convictions or license revocations a person has within the preceding 10 years. 

 

 

Probable cause to arrest for driving under the influence of marijuana requires a police officer to have more than mere suspicion but less than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction. What are the usual circumstances and observations  of intoxication  made by a officer when deciding whether or not to arrest a suspect? The case usually begins with an officer observing bad driving conduct such as speeding, drifting over the lane dividers, illegal turn, etc. These observations will  justifying the initial stop or "seizure" of  the car under the Constitution.The officer then approaches the car and questions the driver attempting to gain an admission that he or she violated the traffic laws. Any admission made by the driver will be included in a traffic report and used in court to prove the legality of the car stop. Next, an officer who has presumably been trained in narcotics detection  will notice symptoms typically displayed by a person who is driving under the influence of controlled substance. The symptoms of intoxication can include watery and  glassy eyes, fidgety and anxious behavior, sweating and dilated pupils. The observation of these symptoms will justify the officer in requesting that the suspect exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests in order to determine intoxication. These tests can include a preliminary breath test to eliminate the possibility of alcohol followed by an eye-convergence test to show that your eyes react slowly to light. Police also look for an elevated pulse and body and eyelid tremors to justify an arrest. The officer will use his training and experience combined with a suspect's demeanor, driving conduct, and physical condition in order to establish probable cause for an arrest.

 

If you or someone you know has been arrested for driving while under the influence of marijuana or any other  controlled substance, you will need to hire an experienced Minneapolis criminal defense attorney to protect your freedom and reputation. Attorney Robert J. Shane has 30 years of criminal defense experience. Call now for a free phone consultation at (612) 339-1024 or visit my website for "The Best Defense" at www.criminallawyerminnesota.com.