Foreword- we have another case blog by Kayla Terlinde one of our current law clerks.
She has been doing an excellent job reviewing some of the most recent cases out of the Minnesota Supreme Court and Minnesota Court of Appeals. Below is her blog for State v. Hollins.
The Defendant Hollins was entering a nightclub when he walked through the metal detector the metal detector went off. The nightclub security guard Nathan Enget searched Hollins and found a handgun. The Defendant said that he forgot to leave the gun in his car and that he would leave and put the handgun in his car. Enget then called over his supervisor Reginald Smith and Smith told him to take the gun from the defendant and let the defendant enter the nightclub so that there wouldn’t be any problems. Smith proceeded to take the handgun apart. He took the magazine out and then realized that the gun was cocked. Meaning the gun was ready to be fired. After the realization Prince went and got his supervisor John Barlow. Barlow sought two Minneapolis Police Officers. The officer took the handgun and placed it into the trunk of the squad car. The security guards started searching the nightclub for the defendant. Once the defendant was found, the police officers place hand cuffs on him and placed him on the back of the squad car for questioning. The police asked the defendant for his name but the defendant refused to answer. The police then searched him and found in his pocket his I.D. They ran the name that was on the I.D. and found that the defendant was a convicted felon who was not eligible to be carrying a handgun.
The defendant claims that the search conducted by the police was unconstitutional, that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to go into his pockets and look through his wallet. The question for the courts to figure out is if the police were justified in performing a limited search on the defendant for his identification in this case. The court ruled the police did have the right to a limited search on the defendant. They had the suspicion that he was the one carrying a handgun into a public place filled with many people. Even if the defendant had a permit to carry peace officers still have the right to ask for identification. Also the defendant was being investigated for carrying the weapon, which would still give the police the right to a limited search.
The defendant claims that the district court abused their discretion by letting into evidence the handgun, the round, and the magazine. The defendant claimed that the handgun, the round, and the magazine are inadmissible because they couldn’t match the gun to the defendant. If there was any tampering with the evidence then the evidence would be inadmissible according to the law. At trial Enget could not identify the handgun as being the same handgun. However Enget, Prince, and Barlow did testify that they knew 100% that the defendant was the same guy from the nightclub. The district courts did not abuse their discretion by admitting them into evidence.
Please remember that the interpretation and analysis presented here is not intended to be legal advice. If you are seeking legal advice please contact us for a free consultation and actual examination the issues that your case may present.
By: Kayla Terlinde
Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533 (F) 651.344.0700
P.S. Have an attorney in your phone? Add us now 612-217-0077 - While we hope you never need us, we're here if you do.
Tue, January 11, 2011
by Landon Ascheman filed under