Does he stand a chance at a Rassmanson hearing?

[doug0154]

What is the name of your state? Minnesota

My ex-boyfriend was arrested last May on a drug charge. He currently is assigned a public defender, but the guy is eternally unprepared. He has a rassmanson (have no idea if I'm spelling that right or not) hearing scheduled for this Friday. The first two were rescheduled. And we are wondering if he even stands a chance of winning this. Here are the details of the case. I'm giving these directly from the two police reports. Both my ex and the other suspect involved give different accounts - however I'm omitting them, because they'll be irrelevent. I'll be listing two separate accounts, as the two officers involved give different accounts of what happened. There are many discrepancies.

Both officers agree that they seen a van occupied by a white female park in front of a red car occupied by a black male. The female got out of the van and got into the red car. Both officer describe being assigned to that area because of the high drug traffic and prostitution that had been recently reported. And both officers agree in the description of the route that they followed the vehicle - approximately 10 1/2 blocks. And both agree that they observed the woman hop out of the car before coming to a complete stop. Beyond that things begin to differ.
OFFICER 1
States that they began to follow the car because they thought the female "was a possible prostitute".
The car slowed down and, "the passenger door flew open and the female jumped out before the vehicle came to a complete stop"
The officers flashed their lights and made the stop.
Officer 1 spoke with the female passenger, while officer 2 spoke with the male driver.
The female was described as shaking and nervous and told officer 1 that she didn't realize that the car hadn't came to a complete stop, when questioned about it.
Officer 1 reports that the female said "she drove to Minneapolis to meet him (the driver) and look for her sister in the area"
Officer 1 says he spoke with officer two at that point and was advised by officer 2 that the male driver had given him a different story. (neither officer states what that story was)
Officer 1 says he then went back to the female again and confronted her. "She stated that today was her birthday and she came to Minneapolis to celebrate by getting some crack cocaine" and that "the male driver was gonna front me a rock for my birthday"
Officer 1 reports that at that point both he and officer 2 approached the driver of the vehicle and asked him to get out of the car.
Officer 1 reports that at the time that the driver opened the car door that officer 2 saw an opened zipper pouch with a clear plastic bag and some money sticking out of the opening.
Officer 1 reports that the contents of the clear plastic baggie was suspected to be crack cocain.
The male was arrested and the female was cited.

OFFICER 2
Officer 2 reports that after the female got into the males car they began to drive, during one of the turns the driver did not use a turn signal. (no stop was initiated at this time).
Officer 2 reports that before the driver came to a complete stop he observed the "front passenger door open and the female exiting the vehicle"
The stop was initiated.
Officer 2 reports that he approached the driver of the vehicle and began speaking to him.
Officer 2 states that he had the driver "exit the vehicle because he was acting nervous and kept moving his hands around.
Officer 2 reports that as the driver was exiting the vehicle that he noticed a small blue zipper case which was 1/2 closed in the drivers side door campartement "in plain view".
Officer 2 says that he could see the baggie w/ suspected crack cocain in it and money sticking out of it.
Officer 2 reports that at that time he took the driver back to his squad car, got an id from him and asked him why he picked the female up, drove in a circle and dropped her off at the same location, "as I suspected it was narcotics and/or prostitution related activity"
Officer 2 reports that the driver told him, "...he knew the female's sister and they were discussing matters related to her".
Officer 2 then placed the driver in the back of the squad car and spoke with officer 1. At that time officer 1 told officer 2 that the female said the female "was trying to front some crack cocaine from the driver, which conflicted with the drivers story".
The driver was arrested and the female was cited.

Because this is rather involved, I'm listing some of the discrepancies that I found and some of the questions that come to mind.
Discrepancies
1. By both the officer's accounts, both parties initially gave the same reason for meeting; ie, met in regards to the females sister. Officer 1 merely states that officer 2 said the driver gave him a different story. Officer 1 never says what that other story was and officer 2 never claims that the driver gave him any other story than that they met up because of the females sister.
2. Officer 1 states that after the initial questioning that both he and officer 2 approached the driver, still in his car, and had him get out of the car - and officer 2 saw the pouch.
While officer 2 reports that he had the driver get out of the car, found the money and drugs, and placed him in the back of the squad car, during the first point of contact, before ever speaking to officer 1.
Questions
1. Why would seeing a white female get into a vehicle with a black male be suspect to prostitution and/or narcotics activity? Neither party has been arrested for prostitution or distribution of narcotics before. (although it is important to note that the driver of the vehicle has past felonies, but not for the sell of drugs). Maybe it was a couple of lovers having an affair.
2. Why didn't they stop him when he didn't use his turn signal?
3. According to officer 1's report, both he and officer 2 approached the driver and asked that he get out of the car. Which car? According to officer 2, he already had the driver in the back of his squad car before he and officer 1 spoke to each other.

Here are some of the things that apparently the police forgot to put in their report, but both parties involved agree on. It's also important to note that the driver nor the female have spoken to each other since this night, for the driver has been in jail since then and she has no phone. Also very important to note that neither of these parties have reason to lie to me. Key word is ex, and since I'm the only one helping him, it would only hurt him to lie to me.
1. Both suspects claim that the officers stopped them at the time that they first saw the female get into the males vehicle and asked them what they were doing. They said told the officers that they were going for a quick drive and they cops let them go at that.
2. Both suspects agree that at the point of the second contact, the officers both approached them at gun point and began yelling for them to get on the ground, (the driver to get out of the car and on the ground, hands in the air). The female was already out of the car, so she just had to get on the ground.
3. Both agree that the driver was immediately hand cuffed, Terry searched and put into the squad car, before questioned or ID was given.
4. Driver says wasn't asked for ID or questioned until after the search of the car was performed.
5. Both suspects agree that as soon as the money and the dope were found, Officer 1 got on the phone and spoke for an extensive time to someone else before either he or officer 2 proceded with questioning.

Since none of this is in the police report and there are no witnesses that can be found - happened at approximately 1am in the morning - I'm assuming that it's irrelavent. Their word against the cops' word type thing.l
Any help you can give would be appreciated.

 

[Bretagne]

He won't win if he submits his issues on the record. There would have to be testimony given beneficial to his motions for him to prevail. What motions did his attorney bring? Just a standard dismissal motion for lack of probable cause, or are they challenging the Terry stop? Looks like the Terry stop was not good, but if she jumped out of the car while it was still moving, that might be enough unless she comes to testify and says she didn't jump out while still moving.

 

[FlyingRon]

It's not a "Terry Search", by the time that had happened they had already seen the drugs and the woman was already under arrest.

Police are allowed to follow and question suspicious activities no matter how "racist" or "sexist" the profiling may appear to be to you.

The fact that the driver committed several driving infractions and bailed from a moving vehicle was almost certainly probable cause to start the chain of events that followed. The cops are allowed to defer the stop on the minor stuff to see what else might happen.

The fact that there may be discrepancies in the apparent reading of the reports doesn't mean much on it's face (although it may help prepare for interviewing the officers).

Even using your BF's view of events it doesn't seem like there is anything improper. Violating minor infractions in a high crime area during high crime periods is likely to get you stopped to see if they can discover more. I used to have to travel (had to be at work at 3AM) at bar closing time and I can't tell you the number of times I've been stopped for chickenpoop stuff (signalling, bulbs out).

 

[sbd]

It's not a "Terry Search", by the time that had happened they had already seen the drugs and the woman was already under arrest.

Police are allowed to follow and question suspicious activities no matter how "racist" or "sexist" the profiling may appear to be to you.

The fact that the driver committed several driving infractions and bailed from a moving vehicle was almost certainly probable cause to start the chain of events that followed. The cops are allowed to defer the stop on the minor stuff to see what else might happen.

The fact that there may be discrepancies in the apparent reading of the reports doesn't mean much on it's face (although it may help prepare for interviewing the officers).

Even using your BF's view of events it doesn't seem like there is anything improper. Violating minor infractions in a high crime area during high crime periods is likely to get you stopped to see if they can discover more. I used to have to travel (had to be at work at 3AM) at bar closing time and I can't tell you the number of times I've been stopped for chickenpoop stuff (signalling, bulbs out).

In California, your statement would be incorrect.

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA -- IN RE JAIME P -- November 30, 2006, Filed
On April 27, 2004, Fairfield Police Officer Moody detained minor and three other persons after observing what he believed to be traffic violations. The officer first observed the driver of the car turn corners without signaling and then pull over to the curb, again without signaling. (The People conceded these violations standing alone would not have justified a vehicle stop, as no other vehicles were affected; see Veh. Code, § 22107.)

The part about the car not coming to a complete stop and the passenger exiting is also questionable. Was the passenger injured? Did she fall on the ground and scrape her knees from exiting a moving vehicle? If not, I find it hard to believe that the car was still moving and am not aware of a vehicle code violation for this. Maybe there is one, but if there was the actual vehicle code should be in the police report.

Also, the police are not allowed to follow and question suspicious activity no matter how racist it is. Here is an example from another California case:

Next, Carruesco inferred that each individual in the Chevrolet was a gang member because the only individual in the car that he identified was known to him to be an East Side Crip, the cars were driving in East Side Crips territory, and the Chevrolet contained Black males between 15 and 25 years of age. This conclusion, while one possible explanation for the few facts he observed, is unreasonable. There are far too many other possible explanations that fit these facts to conclude that everyone in the cars was a gang member. The only way to justify Carruesco's conclusion is to assume as fact that every Black male between the ages of 15 and 25 in this part of Bakersfield is an East Side Crip, or that every Black male between the ages of 15 and 25 who is in a car with an East Side Crip also must be an East Side Crip. These conclusions are far too consistent with racial profiling to be constitutionally permissible. (Whren v. U.S., supra, 517 U.S. at p. 813; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) 422 U.S. 873, 885–886 [45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 95 S. Ct. 2574].) Carruesco testified, in fact, that only a small percentage of Black males in Bakersfield were members of the East Side Crips, directly undermining his conclusion.

Are we to assume that most of the white females and black males in that neighborhood are hookers and drug dealers?

The Public Defender needs to file a Motion to Suppress the evidence obtained from an illegal traffic stop.

 

[Bretagne]

It's not a "Terry Search", by the time that had happened they had already seen the drugs and the woman was already under arrest.

The police can follow whomever they want, of course, but the question is whether there is enough reasonable and articulable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop. It's not a Terry "search", it's a Terry seizure that is of issue. The police cannot seize you and question you without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity which is objectively valid. I don't see such a suspicion on these facts.

 

[FlyingRon]

The police can follow whomever they want, of course, but the question is whether there is enough reasonable and articulable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop. It's not a Terry "search", it's a Terry seizure that is of issue. The police cannot seize you and question you without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity which is objectively valid. I don't see such a suspicion on these facts.

It's not a Terry ANYTHING if I understand the original poster. The person was already under arrest by the time the search of the person. The original STOP might have be a Terry stop (but that's unlikely since there were already traffic violations involved), but the OP said the officer observed drugs in the car after the driver dived from the moving vehicle.