Pants on the Ground

State v. Wiggins, Minn.Ct.App., 9/14/10.  The state charged Mr. Wiggins with possession of a firearm by an ineligible person.  Mr. Wiggins was hanging with two of his homies in the parking lot of the White Castle.  None of the three was actually eating White Castle food, which you would think was a good thing.  Officer Kara Breci, however, thought that this was highly suspicious so she and her partner approached the car.  As they did so, one of the occupants dropped a plastic bag to the floor; when asked what the bag contained, he replied, “some weed.”  That was enough for the officers to order all three out of the car, and to order Mr. Wiggins to raise his hands above his head.  When he did so his pants fell to his knees.

Officer Breci was intending to frisk Mr. Wiggins.  Being either good natured or squeamish, one supposes, Officer Breci decided first to pull Mr. Wiggins’ pants back up; in doing so, she felt something heavy in one of the pockets, which turned out to be a firearm.  Mr. Wiggins complained that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to have seized the car and its occupants, and that hoisting up his pants was an unconstitutional frisk.  The trial court denied the motion. 

Here’s how the appellate court described the issue:

This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of a novel police procedure which, as far as we can tell, has never been reviewed on appeal by this court or any other. An officer investigating a suspected drug deal directed appellant Frank Wiggins from a car, ordered him to raise his hands high overhead, and then discovered a handgun in his pocket when she hoisted up his sagging pants that had dropped to hang around his knees. Wiggins appeals from his conviction of possession of a firearm by an ineligible person. We must decide whether the unique wardrobe assist was a search subject to constitutional regulation and, if not, whether it was the kind of seizure-related contact otherwise prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.

On appeal, Mr. Wiggins conceded that the officers lawfully approached the parked car and looked inside; and that on seeing the weed they could order the three occupants out to search the car.  The appellate court, at the same time, conceded that the officers seized Mr. Wiggins when they ordered him out of the car, although they did so lawfully.  That left the search and the frisk. 

Mr. Wiggins continued to complain that the officer had no reasonable, articulable suspicion to have “frisked” him, if, indeed, that’s what the officer did when she hoisted up Mr. Wiggins pants.  The trial court had concluded that there was neither a search nor a frisk at all when the officer hoisted up Mr. Wiggins pants and found the gun.  Rather, it was “an accidental finding of a gun as she’s trying to help him get his pants into a decent position.”  The appellate court agrees with this description, saying in a clearly tongue in cheek attitude that “[It] fits,” (apparently unlike Mr. Wiggins’ pants).  The appellate court feels compelled to elaborate just a bit:

… Wiggins was standing in a public parking lot on a busy St. Paul street with his hands high in the air and his pants drooping at his knees. Even assuming that Wiggins intended his pants to sag somewhat, the district court aptly construed the knee-level positioning as “extreme.”

The appellate court winds up with this admonition to anyone who might be thinking of making his or her own “fashion statement” in the name of the law:

Wiggins argues that affirming the district court would encourage officers to trample the privacy of young people who participate in the baggy-pants fashion trend. The concern is unwarranted. Our holding arises from the unique facts here. … [W]e are confident that our opinion will not be misconstrued to suggest that an officer can freely meddle with a person’s clothes to the refrain, “Pants on the ground, pants on the ground” under the guise of providing public assistance.

In the spirit of public assistance, if you’d like to see the lyrics to “Pants on the Ground,” go here.