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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1959

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Stephen Jon Unsworth,
Appellant.

Filed December 31, 2018
Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge*

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-16-6521

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Beth A. Stack, Jason R. Heaser,
Assistant County Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Steven T. Grimshaw, Grimshaw Law, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and

Basil El -Ghazzawy, El -Ghazzawy Law Offices, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and
Klaphake, 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
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Stephen Jon Unsworth challenges his conviction of fifth -degree
possession of a controlled substance, arguing that the district court erred by denying his
motion to suppress because police officers lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to
detain him and his luggage at the airport, and to conduct a dog sniff of his luggage. Because
the totality of the circumstances established reasonable suspicion that Unsworth was
engaged in drug-related criminal activity, we affirm.
D E C I S I O N
When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently
review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in not
suppressing the evidence. State v. Harris , 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999). When the
facts are undisputed, we review de novo whether there was a lawful basis for the challenged
police conduct. State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 843 (Minn. 2011).
The United States and Minnesota Constitu tions protect citizens against
unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. A
search or seizure conducted without a warrant is generally unreasonable unless it falls
under a recognized exception to the warrant requ irement. State v. Ortega , 770 N.W.2d
145, 149 (Minn. 2009) . Under one such exception, a police officer may detain an
individual to conduct a “ brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable,
articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390,
393 (Minn. 2008). Similarly, an officer may seize a traveler’s luggage at the airport if the

3
officer can articulate facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the luggage contains
evidence of criminal activity. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706, 103 S. Ct. 2637,
2644 (1983).
In assessing reasonable suspicion , we consider the totality of the circumstances
known to the officer at the time of the seizure, State v. Smith , 814 N.W.2d 346, 3 51-52
(Minn. 2012), including “s eemingly innocent factors ,” State v. Davis , 732 N.W.2d 173,
182 (Minn. 2007). “The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high.” Diede, 795 N.W.2d
at 843 (quotation omitted). And reasonable suspicion may be “easier to articulate in an
airport” because heightened security concerns and surveillance lower privacy expectations.
State v. Martinson, 581 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Minn. 1998).
The officers who detained Unsworth at the airport were aware of the following facts.
Unsworth was travelling through Minneapolis on a one -way flight from Chicago to San
Francisco,1 and he had purchased the ticket only two days earlier. Because last-minute,
one-way flights are consistent with the travel habits of drug dealers, the officers conducted
a criminal -database check and discovered that Unsworth had a significant drug -related
criminal history : 13 different controlled -substance “violations”2 spanning nearly two
decades, including the possession, sale, and manufacture of various controlled substances;
a cash seizure of $21,604 in 2012 and a pending seizure of $574,840 in cash recovered

1 Unbeknownst to the officers, Unsworth also had a ticket to travel from San Francisco to
Anchorage that same day.

2 The district court found that the “violations” listed in the NCIC database indicated that
Unsworth was “at a minimum . . . arrested for the listed offense.”

4
from a storage locker in 2011 ; and two active Drug Enforcement Administration cases
pending against him in Illinois and Colorado. Unsworth also repeatedly declined to speak
to police officers —in Chicago and Minneapolis —and was recording with his cellphone
when he deplaned in Minneapolis.
Unsworth argues that these circumstances do not establish reasonable , articulable
suspicion because behavior consistent with a drug-courier profile, criminal history , and
suspicious behavior are each individually insufficient to meet that standard. But we do not
consider these circumstances individually ; we consider the totality of the circumstances .
Martinson, 581 N.W.2d at 852. On this record, we conclude that the officers had
reasonable, articulable suspicion that Unsworth was involved in drug -related criminal
activity. Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Unsworth’s motion to
suppress.
Affirmed.