This opinion will be unpublished and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
Brian K. Jackson,
Filed October 31, 2006
Becker County District Court
File No. K2-04-941
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant Attorney
Joseph Evans, Becker County Attorney,
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Jodie L. Carlson, Assistant
Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Shumaker, Judge; and Stoneburner, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
On appeal from conviction of first-degree DWI, appellant argues that the police officer who saw appellant’s vehicle proceed through an intersection with its turn signal on without turning, and then followed the car and found it parked with two of its tires up on the curb did not have articulable suspicion to stop him. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
Brian Keith Jackson argues that the evidence against him should have been suppressed
because the officer who stopped him did not have a reasonable articulable
reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews
the facts independently to determine whether, as a matter of law, the district
court erred by suppressing or not suppressing the evidence. State
v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (
officer may conduct an investigatory stop and temporarily seize a person if the
officer has a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular
person stopped of criminal activity.” State v. Pike, 551 N.W.2d 919, 921 (
Here, the officer had a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop appellant. The officer observed a vehicle traveling through an intersection with its turn signal on without turning. It was approximately 11:15 p.m. and the vehicle was traveling from the area where a bar is located. The officer followed the vehicle and found it parked with its right-side tires up on the curb. As appellant exited the vehicle, the officer pulled up, rolled down his window, and asked appellant to stop. Appellant stopped momentarily, but then fled on foot. After appellant was apprehended, the officer noticed an odor of an alcoholic beverage and marijuana coming from appellant, and observed that appellant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery.
fact that appellant was driving from the direction of a bar is relevant in
establishing a reasonable suspicion. See Paulson v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 384 N.W.2d
244, 246 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that it was relevant that the driver was
traveling on a route commonly used by patrons of a particular bar, at a time
shortly after bar closing). And
an actual traffic violation is not required in order for an officer to conduct
a stop; thus, the officer was able to articulate a reasonable suspicion after
observing appellant driving with his turn signal on, but not turning and
parking his vehicle with two tires on the curb.
See Engwer v. Comm’r of Pub.
Safety, 383 N.W.2d 418, 419 (Minn. App. 1986); see also Berge v. Comm’r of Pub.
Safety, 374 N.W.2d 730, 733 (