State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1786

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Paige Jean Lofberg,
Appellant.

Filed December 24, 2018
Affirmed
Stauber, Judge*

Pennington County District Court
File No. 57-CR-16-988

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Seamus P. Duffy , Pennington County Attorney, Kristin J. Hanson, Assistant County
Attorney, Thief River Falls, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Peter M. Routhier, Special Assistant Public Defender, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Rodenberg, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Stauber, Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
STAUBER, Judge
In this appeal from a conviction of fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance,
appellant argues that (1) her warrantless arrest was unsupported by probable cause to
believe that she committed theft or shoplifting, and (2) the warrantless search of an eyeglass
case in her purse was not a valid search incident to arrest. We affirm.
FACTS
At 7:45 a.m. on December 18, 2016, Thief River Falls police officers Williams and
Tureson were dispatched to a Walmart store to investigate a report that someone was acting
suspiciously and possibly preparing to steal items from the store. Tim Hilde, a Walmart
theft-loss employee, reported that a woman was taking items out of packages and breaking
them down to fit in her purse and pockets. She was also placing items in a laundry basket,
in a backpack and luggage that she had removed from shelves and placed in a shopping
cart. Initially, Hilde asked the officers to wait outside and said that he would maintain eye
contact with the woman and notify the officers when she left the store.
At approximately 1:26 p.m., Hilde asked the officers to come inside and intercede
because the woman had been in the store so long. When the officers went inside, Hilde led
them to appellant Paige Jean Lofberg. Lofberg was in the automotive -services waiting
area, and she was looking out the window as if waiting for a car to pull up to the rear of the
store. Williams testified at the omnibus hearing that when he and Tureson confronted
Lofberg, she had an open purse, in which they could see food items that had been taken out
of the package.

3
While going through the items, Williams saw a glasses case a nd, not knowing
whether it belonged to the store or Lofberg, he opened it and found a needle, a spoon, and
a small amount of a substance that appeared to be methamphetamine. After removing
additional store items from Lofberg’s pockets, the officers arrest ed her. Lofberg had no
money with her to pay for any of the items. Williams recovered 220 items worth $1,738.70
in Lofberg’s possession. The items were i n her pockets and purse, in the laundry basket
and in a backpack. Walmart calculated that only $25 worth of items in Lofberg’s
possession were not in salable condition.
Williams testified on cross-examination:
Q. Now when [Hilde] called you to intercede, was it just based
on the amount of time [Lofberg] had been in the store?
A. It was based on her —what he perceived as making
preparations to leave the store or for somebody to pull up and
pick her up. He stated that during the course of the —I’ll say
seven hours that she was in the store, she had moved her items
to the front of the store, to the back o f the store, to the front
several different times while she’s on the phone. He perceived
that somebody is either going to pick her up from the front of
the store or the rear of the store.

Lofberg was charged with fifth -degree possession of methamphetamin e and
attempted felony theft. The district court denied Lofberg’s motion to suppress the
methamphetamine and to dismiss the attempted felony -theft charge for lack of probable
cause. The state dismissed the attempted felony-theft charge, and the parties submitted the
case to the district court for decision on stipulated facts. Under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01,
subd., 4, the court found Lofberg guilty of fifth -degree possession of methamphetamine.
This appeal followed sentencing.

4
D E C I S I O N
When this court reviews a district court’ s pretrial order on a motion to suppre ss
evidence, the district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. State v. Eichers,
853 N.W.2d 114, 118 (Minn. 2014). But we “independently review the facts to determine
whether, as a matter of law, the [district] court erred in its ruling.” State v. Jackson ,
742 N.W.2d 163, 168 (Minn. 2007).
Probable Cause to Arrest
Lofberg argues that the search of her purse was illegal because the police lacked
probable cause to arrest her. “The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective
facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prude nce would
entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” In re Welfare
of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Minn. 1997).
A theft occurs when a person “intentionally and without claim of right takes, uses,
transfers, conceals or retains possession of movable property of another without the other’s
consent and with intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of the pro perty.”
Minn. Stat. § 609.52, subd. 2 (a)(1) (2016). Shoplifting occurs when a “person has taken,
or is taking, an article of value ” from a merchant’s place of business “without paying for
it” and the “taking is done with the intent to wrongfully deprive the merchant of the
property.” Minn. Stat. § 629.366, subd. 1(a)(1)-(2) (2016). “Upon a charge being made
by a merchant or merchant’s employee, a peace officer may arrest a person without a
warrant if the officer has reasonable cause for believing that t he person has committed or
attempted to commit [a shoplifting offense].” Id., subd. 2 (2016); see also State v. Childs,

5
269 N.W.2d 25, 27 (Minn. 1978) (“Reasonable cause is . . . synonymous with probable
cause.”). An attempt to commit a crime occurs when a person “ does an act which is a
substantial step toward, and more than preparation for, the commission of the crime .”
Minn. Stat. § 609.17, subd. 1 (2016).
Lofberg argues that her arrest was based on mere suspicion because she did not try
to leave Walma rt with any unpaid -for merchandise and she did not attempt to flee from
security personnel or the police. Although “[a]n officer may rely on his training and
experience to draw inferences and make deductions that may well elude an untrained
person,” mere suspicion does not establish probable cause for arrest. State v. Skoof, 351
N.W.2d 380, 381 (Minn. App. 1984) (quotation omitted). Lofberg’s argument goes to her
intent. Neither the theft nor the shoplifting statute require a defendant to attempt to leave
a store to prove intent to commit those offenses. Intent “is generally proved by inferences
drawn from a person’s words or actions in light of all the surrounding circum stances.”
State v. Thompson, 544 N.W.2d 8, 11 (Minn. 1996).
Probable cause for arrest is assessed based on the totality of the circumstances.
State v. Ortega, 770 N.W.2d 145, 150 (Minn. 2009). The following circumstances were
known to the officers when they arrested Lofberg: (1) Lofberg was in the Walm art store
behaving suspiciously for almost six hours, and Hilde maintained eye contact with her;
(2) Lofberg removed a backpack and luggage from shelves and used them to conceal items;
(3) Lofberg also concealed items in her purse and pockets , as well as in a laundry basket ;
(4) Lofberg unpackaged some of the items that she concealed; and (5) Lofberg repeatedly
moved between the front and rear of the store while talking on her phone in a manner that

6
made i t appear that she was waiting for someone to come and pick her up. These
circumstances are sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Lofberg committed
attempted theft or shoplifting.
In a pro se supplemental brief, Lofberg asserts that she w as in the automotive -
services area charging her cell phone and was not attempting to leave the store . The fact
that there might have been an innocent explanation for her behavior does not negate the
existence of probable cause. State v. Hawkins, 622 N.W.2d 576, 580 (Minn. App. 2001).
Search Incident to Arrest
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions guarantee individuals the right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I,
§ 10. A warrantless search is reasonable only if it falls within an exception to the warrant
requirement. State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670, 675 (Minn. 2015).
“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well -recognized exception to the warrant
requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762, 766 (Minn.
2015), aff’d sub. nom. , Birchfield v. North Dakota , 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016). An arrest is
lawful if an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime.
G.M., 560 N.W.2d at 695-96.
The arresting officer may then search (1) the arrestee’s person, and (2) the area
within the arrestee’s immediate control. State v. Bradley , 908 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Minn.
App. 2018).
Lofberg argues that the search of her purse was illegal because it was not within the
area of her immediate control. But the justification for allowing a warrantless search of a

7
purse incident to arrest is that it is associated with the arrestee’s person, not that it is in the
area of immediate control. “A search of the arrestee’s person encompasses personal
property . . . immediately associated with the person of the arrestee. Generally, a shoulder
purse is so closely associated with the person that it is identified with and included within
the concept of one’s person.” Bradley, 908 N.W.2d at 370 (quotations and citation
omitted). In Bradley, appellant was carrying her purse when detained by a store
investigator who saw her attempt to shoplift food items by concealing them in her purse .
This court held “that appellant’s purse remained immediately associated with her person
during the detention at the store and was subject to a subsequent search incident to her
lawful arrest by the officer who knew or had reason to know she had possessed it when
detained.” Id. at 371 (emphasis added).
Although Lofberg was not carrying her purse when detained by the officers, Hilde
watched her unpackage store items and put them in her purse. Hilde provided that
information to the officers and maintained constant eye contact on Lofberg after she came
to his attention. Applying Bradley, we conclude that the search of Lofberg’s purse was a
valid as a search incident to arrest.
Affirmed.