explaining that the officer’s observations of evasive and nervous conduct did not support an articu-lable suspicion of criminal activity when “the officer also testified that he did not conclude at the point that he determined to retrieve his dog that the driver was under the influence of anything”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the officer’s observations of evasive and nervous conduct did not support an articu-lable suspicion of criminal activity when “the officer also testified that he did not conclude at the point that he determined to retrieve his dog that the driver was under the influence of anything”
- holding that narcotics dog sniff around exterior of motor vehicle stopped for routine equipment violation required reasonable, articulable suspicion of drug-related criminal activity under U.S. Const, amend. IV and Minn. Const, art. I, § 10
- concluding that under circumstances where a driver was “evasive, nervous and had glossy eyes,” “acting suspiciously [was] not an articulable basis to suspect criminal activity” that would justify 14 the drug-dog sniff of a car
- determining that a drug dog sniff of a vehicle was not justified where the driver was evasive, nervous, and shaking, and noting that “acting suspiciously is not an articula-ble basis to suspect criminal activity”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BLATZ, Chief Justice
(concurring and concurring specially).
I join in the concurrence and special concurrence of Justice Page.