EN BANC CALENDAR

Before the Minnesota Supreme Court

July 2016

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Summaries prepared by the Supreme Court Commissioner’s Office

 

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center

 

State of Minnesota, Respondent vs. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr., Appellant – Case No. A15-1432: During a traffic stop, law enforcement officers used a trained drug-detection dog to detect the presence of controlled substances in a vehicle driven by appellant Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Officers searched the vehicle and discovered controlled substances and paraphernalia. Respondent the State of Minnesota charged Lugo with several offenses, including possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Lugo moved before trial to suppress the evidence seized during the vehicle search. He conceded the lawfulness of the initial stop, but he argued that officers expanded the scope of the stop when they conducted the dog-sniff and that this expansion was not supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the motion, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the drug-related charges. The court held that the reasons given by officers for suspecting Lugo of drug-possession were not objectively reasonable. The State appealed the district court’s pretrial order. Noting that the facts were not in dispute, the court of appeals applied de novo review to the district court’s legal conclusion that the dog-sniff was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The court of appeals concluded that it was and reversed the district court.

On appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are (1) whether, in a pretrial appeal by the State from a district court order suppressing evidence, a reviewing court must defer to the district court’s fact-specific conclusions of law; and (2) whether the dog-sniff in this case was supported by reasonable, articulable suspicion. (Nobles County District Court)