This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Filed January 31, 2006
Stearns County District Court
File No. T0-03-9966
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Halbrooks, Judge.
Because the district court did not err in finding that police had a proper basis for stopping appellant’s vehicle, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
“Wereview de novo a district court’s
determination of the legality of an investigatory stop and questions of reasonable
suspicion.” Magnuson v.
Fourth Amendment, a police officer may conduct a limited stop to investigate
suspected criminal activity if the officer can “point to specific and
articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those
facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”
State v. Britton, 604 N.W.2d
84, 87 (
agree with the district court’s determination that the informant provided a 911
operator with facts supporting a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity. The informant stated that “a
big fight” between a husband and wife that “d[i]dn’t look good” was taking
place in the St. Cloud Holiday Inn parking lot.
The informant provided the license plate number and general description of
the car. Within a few minutes of the
call, a police officer drove to the hotel and observed a vehicle matching the
description and license plate number driving out of the parking lot. Given the nature of the information provided
by the informant and the speedy corroboration of that information by police
before the stop, we conclude that reasonable suspicion existed to justify the
investigatory stop. See, e.g., Marben v. State, 294 N.W.2d 697, 698-99 (