Unpublished Potpourri, Minnesota Court of Appeals

DUI Source Code

Chastek v. Comm. of Public Safety, Unpublished, Minn.Ct.App., 4/7/2009.  The court rather cursorily dispenses with this denial of source code appeal, for the usual reasons.  For the most recent posts on this subject go here and here.

Eyewitness Identification

State v. Dean, Unpublished, Minn.Ct.App., 4/7/2009.  Mr. Dean complained that officers assembled the photographic array around his appearance, rather than from the witness descriptions of the alleged perpetrator as required by the police protocol.  He also complained that the officer who administered the array knew which picture was Mr. Dean, contrary to the department protocol.  The Court of Appeals rejects both of these contentions.  All that Minnesota law currently requires is that persons in the array must bear a reasonable physical similarity to the accused; that Hennepin County has adopted a different protocol does not make the failure to adhere to that protocol a basis to suppress the resulting identification.  Likewise with the administrator knowing which picture was Mr. Dean.  Moreover, the court characterized this as only a "slight deviation" from that protocol.  Finally, that the administrator asked the witness if he knew someone with Mr. Dean's name before administering the display - again, in violation of the protocol - does not require suppression.  After all:

This is because “[a] witness who has been asked to view a photo display has probably already assumed that a suspect has been found and that one of the photos is of that suspect."

State v. Porter, 411 N.W.2d 187, 190 (Minn. App. 1987).  Oh dear.  The current protocol that the Minneapolis Police Department utilizes when conducting eyewitness identifications can be found here.  Scroll down to Section 10-208.01 Sequential Identification Photographic Lineups (10/14/05). 

_____________________

State v. Harris, Unpublished, Minn.Ct.App., 4/7/2009.  Officers put Mr. Harris in a "show-up" following his apprehension near the location of a reported burglary.  He moved to suppress the resulting identification; the trial court denied the motion.  Here's how the "show up" went down:

Appellant contends that the one-person show-up conducted in this case was unnecessarily suggestive because he was singled out based on a description that referred to the suspect’s race, he was handcuffed and placed in a squad car, he was told to step out of the squad to be viewed by the victims, and he was flanked by an officer during the identification.

The officer said that he "took care" not to tell the witness that Mr. Harris was either a suspect or the person who committed the crime.  This seemed to satisfy both the trial court and the court of appeals, notwithstanding some case law that at least suggests some problems.  The court has just recently held that a show up of a suspect in handcuffs was unnecessarily suggestive.  In re Welfare of M.E.M., 674 N.W.2d 208, 215 (Minn. App. 2004). 

The Dallas Police Department is not so enamored of "show ups."  For more, go here.