# State v. Wiegand

> Supreme Court of Minnesota · June 13, 2002 · 645 N.W.2d 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686363

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Rolan WIEGAND, Lorna Quesette Matthews, Almond Baxter Longley, Petitioners, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Minnesota
- **Decided:** June 13, 2002
- **Citations:** 645 N.W.2d 125; 2002 WL 1291788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blatz
- **Judges:** Russell A. Anderson
- **Cited by:** 77 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686363

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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
- noting that scope of permissible Terry stop can be expanded to support “investigation of only those additional offenses for which the officer develops a reasonable, articula-ble suspicion within the time necessary to resolve the originally-suspected offense.”

## Opinion text

BLATZ, Chief Justice
(concurring and concurring specially).
I join in the concurrence and special concurrence of Justice Page.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9686363. Public record. Not legal advice.