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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-0935

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs

Zachariah Daniel Wilson,
Appellant.

Filed June 3, 2019
Affirmed
Bratvold, Judge

Scott County District Court
File No. 70-CR-17-22310

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Assistant County Attorney,
Shakopee, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Chang Y. Lau, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Reilly, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BRATVOLD, Judge
In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction for fifth-degree
controlled-substance possession and giving a peace officer a false name, appellant argues
2
that law enforcement lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain him. Because
appellant forfeited this issue by not raising it at the omnibus hearing, and because the record
is not sufficiently developed for appellate review, we decline to address the issue and affirm
appellant’s conviction.
FACTS
On December 14, 2017, just after 2:00 a.m., Officer Hendricks of the Shakopee
Police Department was on patrol, driving down a county highway, when he conducted a
random license-plate check of a Buick that was also travelling on the same highway . The
license plates were registered to a Subaru. Hendricks testified that, in his experience, a
mismatched license plate is often indicative of criminal activity, such as an invalid driver’s
license, active warrants, or a stolen car. Hendricks radioed other officers for backup before
activating his emergency lights; the Buick pulled over.
As he walked over to speak with the driver, Hendricks saw five occupants (a driver,
a front passenger, and three backseat passengers). Appellant Zachariah Daniel Wilson was
sitting in the backseat, directly behind the front passenger. The other two backseat
passengers kept “moving around” and Hendricks repeatedly told the middle backseat
passenger to stop moving. Hendricks noticed that none of the backseat passengers were
wearing seatbelts.
The driver appeared “very nervous” and admitted that she did not have her driver’s
license. The front passenger said that they were headed to Mystic Lake Casino. Hendricks
asked everyone for identification, which the driver, front passenger, and middle backseat
passenger were able to provide. Wilson told Hendricks he did not have any identification;
3
Wilson said his name was “Thomas Wilson” and his birthdate was January 13, 1977. The
third backseat passenger gave Hendricks what later turned out to be a false name and
birthdate. Hendricks noted the Buick’s vehicle identification number (VIN) and returned
to his squad car while two backup officers remained with the Buick and its occupants.
Hendricks ran a computer check of the VIN, which revealed the Buick was stolen.
Hendricks contacted dispatch to report the stolen car; a fourth officer reported as additional
backup. Hendricks then returned to the Buick where he and the other officers detained all
five occupants by handcuffing each of them and placing most of them in different vehicles.
After handcuffing Wilson, Hendricks conducted a pat-down search, which did not
turn up any weapons. Hendricks also asked Wilson if he would consent to having his
pockets searched and Wilson refused. Hendricks honored Wilson’s refusal and seated him
in the backseat of a squad car.
Hendricks next checked the name and birthdate that Wilson had provided, which
did not return any results on any database. Hendricks testified that in his experience, no
results for a name and birthdate “leads [him] to believe that they’re giving false
information,” probably due to active warrants.
Hendricks then asked W ilson if he had provided false information, which Wilson
denied. Wilson gave Hendricks a middle name (Thomas Lester Wilson), explained that he
had never had a Minnesota driver’s license, and that he did not know his social security
number. Hendricks attempted to identify Wilson using the additional information provided,
but again received no results. Hendricks also spoke to the driver, who identified Wilson as
“Zach.”
4
Hendricks arrested Wilson for providing false information to a peace officer and
riding in a car without the owner’s consent. Hendricks searched Wilson and found “several
plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance inside of them,” which field-tested
positive for methamphetamine. Hendricks and the other officers then searched the Buick
and found drug paraphernalia near where Wilson and the middle backseat passenger had
been seated. The other four individuals in the Buick were also arrested for various offenses.
Wilson was identified as Zachariah Daniel Wilson after he was fingerprinted at
the jail. Wilson had at least one active arrest warrant. The state charged Wilson with
fifth-degree controlled-substance possession (count I), in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 152.025, subd. 2(1) (2016); motor vehicle tampering (count II), in violation of Minn.
Stat. § 609.546(1) (2016); and giving a peace officer a false name (count III), in violation
of Minn. Stat. § 609.506, subd. 1 (2016).
At the omnibus hearing, Wilson contested the probable cause for his arrest and the
legality of the search incident to arrest; his counsel expressly waived all other issues. The
district court, in a written memorandum , concluded that law enforcement had probable
cause to arrest Wilson for providing a false name to a peace officer, but dismissed count II
(motor vehicle tampering) after finding that Hendricks “did not have sufficient probable
cause to arrest [Wilson] on [c]ount II due to the lack of evidence that [Wilson] knew he
was riding in a stolen vehicle.” Wilson proceeded to a jury trial on the remaining two
counts, and was found guilty on both counts.
5
In May 2018, Wilson was sentenced on count I to 365 days in jail, which was stayed
while Wilson was on supervised probation for five years. Wilson was sentenced to 90 days
on count II, which was satisfied by time already served. Wilson appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Wilson argues that law enforcement lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion that
would justify detaining him in the backseat of the squad car. This is the only issue Wilson
raises in his brief to this court. He acknowledges that the issue was not raised in the district
court. Wilson contends that this court should address the legality of the expansion of the
traffic stop because his argument “effectively challenges the legality of his arrest,” which
is an issue he raised in district court. Alternatively, Wilson argues that we should address
the issue “on its merits in the interest of justice.”
Appellate courts ordinarily do not address issues for the first time on appeal, even
issues that involve constitutional questions. Roby v. State, 547 N.W.2d 354, 357 (Minn.
1996). An appellate court “may deviate from this rule when the interests of justice require
consideration of such issues and doing so would not unfairly surprise a party to the appeal.”
Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court has previously concluded that the “interests of justice
do not require us to address [an] issue, where [a defendant] consented to and actively
encouraged” the forfeiture of an issue which was then raised for the first time on appeal.
State v. Wembley, 728 N.W.2d 243, 245-46 (Minn. 2007).
Appellate courts consider several factors to determine whether to address an issue
in the interests of justice. State v. Johnson, 851 N.W.2d 60, 64 (Minn. 2014). One factor is
whether the issue poses a legal or factual question. See id. If the issue is factual in nature,
6
we consider whether the record is sufficiently developed for appellate review of the new
issue. See id. Second, appellate courts consider whether an appellant had the opportunity
to raise the issue in the district court. See id. Third, we may decline to address a n issue
raised for the first time on an appeal if it works an unfair surprise on the opposing party.
State v. Henderson, 706 N.W.2d 758, 759 (Minn. 2005).
At the omnibus hearing, the district court asked defense counsel whether Wils on
was “waiving all other omnibus issues other than the arrest and search,” to which
defense counsel responded, “That’s correct, your Honor.” Similarly, Wilson’s post-hearing
memorandum addressed only whether the officer had probable cause to arrest Wilson.
In its written order, the district court identified, and addressed, whether Hendricks had
probable cause to arrest Wilson and the legality of the search of Wilson’s person incident
to arrest. The district court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law with regard to
Wilson’s detention in the backseat of the squad car.
Wilson argues that, while the issue raised in his brief to this court was not raised
below, he is “effectively” challenging the legality of his arrest by challenging the initial
detention. We disagree. At the omnibus hearing, Wilson only challenged whether probable
cause existed for his arrest and the legality of the search of his person subsequent to arrest.
Wilson explicitly forfeited all other issues. T he district court did not make findings
regarding law enforcement’s reasonable and articulable suspicion to expand the traffic stop
and detain Wilson in the back of a squad car. Moreover, because Wilson only challenged
whether probable cause existed for his arrest and the subsequent search of his person, the
state had no opportunity to develop a factual record on the legality of Wilson’s initial
7
detention. Thus, this court lacks the required record and factual findings to review the issue
now raised for the first time on appeal. If we were to address the legality of Wilson’s initial
detention, it would, therefore, work an unfair surprise on the state. See State v. Gauster,
752 N.W.2d 496, 508-09 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the state could not raise the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the issue was not raised at the
district court, the record was insufficiently developed on relevant facts, and the district
court made no findings of fact on that issue).
Because we conclude that Wilson forfeited the issue he now raises for the first time
on appeal, we decline to address it and affirm Wilson’s conviction.
Affirmed.