author: MEYER, Justice.

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Matthew Philip ANDERSON, Appellant.
    No. A03-290.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 29, 2004.

      Robert L. McCormick, University Student Legal Service, Minneapolis, for appellant.
    Mike Hatch, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Atty., Julie Delgado-O’Neil, Asst. Minneapolis City Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.
   OPINION

MEYER, Justice.

A police officer conducted a traffic stop of Matthew Anderson, the appellant, for violating Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11 (2002), which requires motorists to move “a lane away” from stopped emergency vehicles. During the stop, the officer obtained evidence that was used to charge Anderson with Impaired Driving in the Fourth Degree in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 1(5), and 169A.27, subd. 1 (2002). Anderson moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that the police officer who stopped him lacked a “particularized and objective basis” for suspecting him of criminal activity because Anderson had, in fact, moved a lane away from the stopped emergency vehicle. The district court suppressed the evidence of impaired driving because it concluded that Anderson was not actually violating Minn.Stat. § 169.18 (2002) when he was stopped. The court of appeals reversed and held that an officer’s reasonable interpretation of a statute, whether erroneous or not, may form the basis for an investigatory traffic stop. State v. Anderson, 671 N.W.2d 900, 904 (Minn.App.2003). We reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the decision of the district court.

In this case we must decide two issues: (1) Did Anderson fail to move a lane away from the lane where the police officer’s ear was stopped, and thus violate Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11? If yes, the traffic stop was legal and the evidence of impaired driving was properly seized; and (2) If Anderson was not in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, may the officer’s mistaken belief about the correct interpretation of a traffic law form the particularized and objective basis for suspecting him of criminal activity required to justify a traffic stop?

On February 7, 2003, a University of Minnesota police officer stopped a motor vehicle traveling eastbound on University Avenue S.E. near Walnut Street in Minneapolis. At this location, University Avenue is a one-way street with three lanes of traffic and a paved bicycle lane next to the right curb. The vehicle pulled over to the right and stopped close to the curb. The officer stopped his squad car behind the stopped vehicle with the squad car’s emergency lights activated. In doing so, his squad car partially occupied the right lane of traffic. The officer exited his squad car and went to talk to the driver of the stopped vehicle. As the officer was walking back to his squad car from the stopped vehicle, he observed a motor vehicle approaching on University Avenue in the center lane. This vehicle, driven by the appellant Matthew Anderson, had signaled a lane change and moved into the center lane to avoid the officer and his squad car.

Believing that Anderson’s vehicle passed too close to him and his stopped squad car, the officer immediately entered his squad car, pursued Anderson, and initiated a traffic stop. The officer informed Anderson that the reason for the stop was the officer’s belief that Anderson was in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11. He believed that Anderson was in violation of this law because he thought it was illegal for Anderson to pass the stopped squad car without allowing “a buffer lane of traffic” between the two vehicles.

In the course of speaking to Anderson, the officer formed the belief that Anderson was intoxicated and, therefore, a breath test was administered. The results of the test, combined with an admission by Anderson, led the officer to arrest Anderson for impaired driving. The state charged Anderson with Driving While Impaired in the Fourth Degree, in violation of Minn.Stat. §§ 169A.20, subd. 1(5) and 169A.27, subd. 1 (driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 or more). He was not charged with violating Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11.

Anderson made a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the officer as a result of the traffic stop, claiming that the officer based the stop on an incorrect interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, and, therefore, the officer lacked an objective basis to stop Anderson. The district court found that the squad car was stopped completely within the right-hand lane. The court concluded that Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, does not require motorists to provide a buffer lane between themselves and parked emergency vehicles. The court concluded that the officer misinterpreted the statute and, therefore, suppressed the evidence of impaired driving because the officer lacked an objective basis for the stop. The court of appeals reversed. State v. Anderson, 671 N.W.2d 900, 904 (Minn.App.2003). The court stated that the statute was ambiguous, the officer’s interpretation of that ambiguous statute was reasonable, and that that interpretation provided an objectively reasonable basis to stop Anderson. Id. at 903-04. We granted Anderson’s petition for review.

I.

This case comes to us on an appeal of a district court’s pretrial suppression order. When the state appeals such an order, it must show that the ruling was erroneous and that it will have a “critical impact” on its ability to prosecute the ease. See State v. Kromah, 657 N.W.2d 564, 566 (Minn.2003). The parties in this case do not dispute that, if upheld, the district court’s suppression order will have a critical impact on the state’s case. Anderson, 671 N.W.2d at 902.

The first question is whether Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, requires motorists to provide a buffer lane between themselves and parked emergency vehicles. Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that we review de novo. Am. Family Ins. Group v. Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn.2000). Our canons of statutory construction demand that we “construe words and phrases according to rules of grammar and according to their most natural and obvious usage unless it would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature.” Amaral v. St. Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn.1999) (citing Minn.Stat. § 645.08(1) (2002)). When the text of a law is plain and unambiguous, we “must not engage in any further construction.” Gomon v. Northland Family Physicians, Ltd., 645 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Minn.2002); see also Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2002). Therefore, we must first examine the statute to determine if any ambiguities exist. Weinberger v. Maple-wood Review, 668 N.W.2d 667, 672 (Minn.2003). A statute is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. Id.

Minnesota Statutes § 169.18, subd. 11, reads as follows:

When approaching and before passing an authorized emergency vehicle that is parked or otherwise stopped on or next to a street or highway having two or more lanes in the same direction, the driver of a vehicle shall safely move the vehicle to a lane away from the emergency vehicle.

(emphasis added). At the suppression hearing, the officer offered his interpretation of the statute:

It is my interpretation of the * * * law that when an emergency vehicle is on the side of the road, either with its emergency lights activated or not, if there is an opportunity for a vehicle to give a buffer lane between that emergency vehicle and the driver’s car an open lane should be opened so that an officer has a safety zone.

The district court rejected the officer’s interpretation of the statute and concluded that the statute unequivocally requires drivers to move to “the next lane over from where the police car is stopped.” In reversing the district court, the court of appeals concluded that Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, could mean “either in the next lane or a full lane away,” and, therefore, was ambiguous. Anderson, 671 N.W.2d at 904. The state notes that the word “away” has several dictionary definitions and, therefore, argues that we should affirm the court of appeals’ holding that the statute is ambiguous.

We do not agree with the court of appeals that the phrase, “a lane away” is ambiguous. The state is correct to point out that the word “away,” when standing alone, has several meanings. However, a reading of the phrase “a lane away” that parses the individual words from each other detracts from the plain meaning of the phrase as a whole. See Chiodo v. Bd. of Educ. of Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 298 Minn. 380, 382, 215 N.W.2d 806, 808 (1974) (“words of a statute are to be viewed in their setting, not isolated from their context.”) When the phrase “a lane away” is viewed as a whole, its “natural and obvious usage” is clear; it means “in the lane next to” the stopped emergency vehicle. See Amaral, 598 N.W.2d at 384.

The parties agree that Anderson’s vehicle was completely within the center lane of traffic, the lane next to the lane occupied by the officer’s stopped squad car. Therefore, Anderson was not in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, when the officer conducted the traffic stop.

II.

We next decide whether a police officer’s mistaken interpretation of the law may constitute the particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity required to make a traffic stop. The district court concluded that the officer did not have an objective legal basis for the stop. The court of appeals held that because the statute was ambiguous, the officer’s interpretation of the ambiguous statute was reasonable and, therefore, he had an objectively reasonable basis to stop Anderson. Anderson, 671 N.W.2d at 904.

In general, the state and federal constitutions allow an officer to conduct a limited investigatory stop of a motorist if the state can show that the officer had a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); see also Berge v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 374 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Minn.1985). In order to justify such an investigatory stop, “the police must only show that the stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was based upon ‘specific and articula-ble facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.’ ” State v. Pike, 551 N.W.2d 919, 921-22 (Minn.1996) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop. State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Minn.1997).

In George, a trooper stopped a motorcycle because it appeared to have three headlights, which was believed by the officer to be a violation of a Minnesota statute that allowed no more than two headlights. Id. at 576. However, a separate statute allowed motor vehicles to carry up to two “auxiliary driving lamps.” Id. at 578. According to a rule promulgated by the Department of Public Safety, the lights on the defendant’s motorcycle were properly classified as “auxiliary passing lamps.” Id. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the stop, arguing that the officer lacked an objective legal basis for the stop because the motorcycle had a legal configuration of headlights. Id. The state argued that the stop was not the product of “whim, caprice, or malice” because the trooper stopped the defendant for having a headlight configuration that appeared to be illegal. Id. We held that, because the defendant’s headlight configuration was legal, the officer lacked an objective basis for suspecting the defendant of illegal activity. Id.

In this case, the state argues that because the officer stopped Anderson for conduct that the officer believed to be illegal, the stop was not a product of “whim, caprice, or idle curiosity” and therefore constituted a reasonable stop. According to the state, George is distinguishable as a case in which the officer’s interpretation of the law was contrary to clearly established law. See George, 557 N.W.2d at 578 (listing statute and rule contrary to the trooper’s interpretation of the headlight law). The state argues that, unlike the officer in George, the officer here could articulate a basis for the stop that was based on a subjectively reasonable interpretation of a law that had not yet been interpreted by the appellate courts.

Anderson, on the other hand, argues that our holding in George was not dependent on the officer’s subjective belief, but rather on the correctness of the officer’s conclusion that the defendant was violating the law. According to Anderson, when George is read in this way, it is indistinguishable from the case before us and mandates that we reverse the court of appeals.

We agree with Anderson’s reading of our case law. Decisions of this court and the United States Supreme Court focus not on the subjective belief of the officer, but rather on the objective basis for the belief that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity. See Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690; George, 557 N.W.2d at 579. In George, we did not inquire into the reasonableness of the trooper’s belief that the defendant violated the law. See 557 N.W.2d at 578-79. Rather, the fact that the trooper was incorrect in his factual and legal assessment of the defendant’s motorcycle was sufficient for us to conclude that he lacked a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was violating the law. Id. Therefore, we hold that an officer’s mistaken interpretation of a statute may not form the particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity necessary to justify a traffic stop.

We do not question the good faith of the officer in stopping Anderson for conduct the officer believed to be illegal. We emphasize that whether made in good faith or not, the officer was mistaken in his interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 169.18, subd. 11, and therefore he lacked a particularized and objective basis for stopping Anderson. See Berge, 374 N.W.2d at 732. Because no objective basis existed for the stop, we hold that the district court was correct in excluding evidence obtained pursuant to that stop.

Reversed.

      . If, as the state contends, the legislature intended for motorists to provide a buffer lane, it would have drafted the legislation to say that motorists must "provide a buffer lane” or "provide a lane between the vehicle and the emergency vehicle."


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: GILBERT, Justice. PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice PAGE, Justice

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Sergio SANCHEZ-DIAZ, Appellant.
    No. A03-1342.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    July 29, 2004.

      Lydia Villalva Lijo, Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, for Appellant.
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, Michael K. Junge, McLeod County Atty., and Mark A. Metz, Asst. McLeod County Atty., Glencoe, for Respondent.
   OPINION

GILBERT, Justice.

In this appeal from a conviction for first-degree murder while committing domestic abuse and second-degree murder of an unborn child, appellant Sergio Sanchez-Diaz asks us to consider four issues. The first is whether the state introduced sufficient evidence to prove the elements of domestic abuse murder; namely, that appellant committed the murder while engaging in domestic abuse and that appellant engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse. The second is whether the jury instruction defining a past pattern of domestic abuse was erroneous. The third is whether the district court erred in admitting appellant’s statements to police, which contained numerous interpretation errors. The final issue is whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive sentence for the second-degree murder of an unborn child conviction.

Because of the nature of appellant’s arguments, it is necessary to review the relevant facts in detail. On the night of December 29, 2001, appellant allegedly stabbed Laura Vazquez Ruelas 13 times, killing her and her unborn child. At the time, appellant was 23 years old and was living with the victim who was 26 years old. They had a 9-month-old son who was born in March of 2001. The victim was also 6 months pregnant with their second child.

The appellant and victim’s intimate relationship began in 1999. They were both recent immigrants from Mexico. They lived together in a mobile home park in Lester Prairie. The victim’s family occupied six mobile homes in the park. In December of 2001, the appellant and victim moved out of their mobile home, which lacked heat, and into lot 15 with one of the victim’s sisters and her family.

On the night of the murder, the victim was at her parent’s trailer with her son playing dominos with family members. Appellant was feeling sick and came to the trailer at around 8:30 p.m. to take their son home so he could go to sleep. Family members testified that appellant appeared angry when he arrived at the trailer and that he slammed the door on his way out. Appellant returned to the trailer about a half hour later, stuck his head in the door, and asked the victim to return home because the child was “crabby.” The victim returned home shortly thereafter.

The victim’s mother was concerned for her daughter’s well being because appellant appeared upset when he arrived at the trailer. She asked two adult male relatives to check on her daughter and appellant. They refused, and she then asked her 13-year-old daughter (the victim’s sister) to go to lot 15. About 5 to 10 minutes elapsed between the time the victim left the trailer and her 13-year-old sister left to check on her. Upon arriving at lot 15, the victim’s sister heard the child crying and ran into the trailer. In the trailer, she observed the victim on the ground unconscious with her child who was physically unharmed next to her. She also saw appellant with a knife in his chest. Appellant told her not to say anything. She ran home, alerted her mother, and someone called 911.

Family members ran to lot 15 and at least five of them entered the trailer before the police arrived. Lester Prairie police officers arrived at the scene at about 9:30 p.m. The officers saw the victim and appellant lying on the floor covered in blood. The victim had a steak knife blade lodged in her upper right shoulder. One of the officers checked the victim’s pulse and did not find a pulse. He then checked appellant’s pulse, eventually felt a faint pulse and called for medical assistance. The officers recovered a wooden knife handle between two couches that matched the blade lodged in the victim. The blood on the knife blade lodged in the victim matched her DNA profile but not appellant’s. The officers found a second bloody knife behind the faucet in the kitchen sink. The blade of that knife contained a mixture of DNA from two people, with the predominant DNA profile matching appellant, and the other profile could not be identified.

The victim was stabbed 13 times in her chest, face, and lower back. The most serious wound pierced her aorta. Her 6-month-old female fetus died as the result of a lack of oxygen circulation. The autopsy revealed that the fetus had no apparent congenital or developmental defects or any direct injuries from the stabbing.

Appellant was taken to the emergency room at Waconia Ridgeview Medical Center. He had five stab wounds, three to his upper chest on the left side and two to the middle of his left upper abdomen. One of the stab wounds collapsed a lung. The doctor who treated appellant in the emergency room and a forensic pathologist testified that they could not tell whether any of the wounds were self-inflicted.

The police took a brief statement from appellant in the emergency room at approximately 11:15 p.m. the night of the murder. An interpreter was called to the emergency room. At the time, the interpreter was not a state certified interpreter. In that brief statement, appellant told police that he and the victim were arguing, he pushed her on to the bed; she stabbed him and then he took the knife from her and stabbed her.

A BCA agent and a detective took a second more detailed statement from appellant in the hospital two days later on December 31. Investigators utilized the same interpreter. In that statement, appellant said that he and the victim were arguing in the bathroom about the victim’s desire to leave him. During that argument he slapped the victim in her face, took their son to the living room and began putting his jacket on in an attempt to leave. Appellant stated that the victim then stabbed him in the chest; he removed the knife from his chest, stabbed the victim, and then stabbed himself. In that statement, appellant also admitted to grabbing the victim by the neck on a prior occasion and to slapping the victim two or three times in the past. Appellant also stated that the victim was afraid of him. Additionally, when questioned about what the victim’s family members would tell investigators about the way appellant had treated the victim in the past, appellant said that members of the victim’s family knew that he had abused the victim and that “[e]verybody knew how we lived.”

On January 3, 2002, the state charged appellant with second-degree intentional murder and second-degree murder of an unborn child. On February 21, 2002, a grand jury indicted appellant for first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and second-degree murder of an unborn child. The trial was scheduled to begin on January 14, 2003. However, on that day, the two court-appointed interpreters who had reviewed the tapes and transcripts of the interviews indicated to the judge that “significant errors” were made in the translations from English to Spanish and from Spanish to English during the interviews. The court appointed an expert translator to listen to the tapes of the interviews and provide a new transcript. The translator spent a substantial amount of time listening to the tapes of the interviews and she prepared a new transcript detailing the original translation in one column and the corrected translation in the second column.

That transcript identified numerous translation errors from both interviews. Because of the nature of appellant’s arguments, it is necessary to review some of the errors in detail. First, the interpreter made a number of relatively minor interpretation errors throughout both interviews. She consistently translated “stabbed” as “cut” and “argument” as “discussion.” The interpreter also translated “crime scene team” as “team of felonies,” “physical” as “palpable,” and “scared” as “shocked.”

The interpreter also made errors that are more significant. During the December 29 interview, investigators asked appellant how long he had lived in lot 22 before moving into lot 15. He answered “two months” and the response was translated as “two years.” When asked how far along the victim was in her pregnancy, appellant responded that he did not know. That response was translated as “six months.” At another point in the interview, the investigator asked appellant where he stabbed the victim. The interpreter translated the question as “[w]here did you hit her.” In the December 31 interview, after describing how the victim had stabbed him, appellant described what he did with the knife. He stated: “And I * * * removed it from myself. Because she got scared and jumped back.” That response was translated as “[a]nd I took it away from her, because she got scared and she pushed — pulled back.” Similarly, at another time in the interview appellant stated: “When she — when I took the knife out of myself in the living room.” That response was translated as “[wjhen I pulled the knife out in the living room.” When appellant was describing how he took their son and was about to leave the trailer he stated: “And when I was changing the baby, I was putting on his jacket so I could leave.” That response was translated into English as “[a]nd I was putting a sweater on [the] baby.” When appellant was explaining a previous incident where he had choked the victim, he admitted choking her and stated: “But it was a very serious fight.” That response was translated as “[i]t was a fight that wasn’t very serious.” In explaining why the bloody knife recovered by the sink did not work when he attempted to commit suicide, appellant said, “[b]ecause it wasn’t very big I think.” That response was translated as, “I think it’s too big.” When appellant explained why he had stabbed the victim, he stated: “I was mad that she had cut me. At the time I felt the cut, I — I didn’t feel anything, I thought she’d hit me with her hand because I didn’t turn.” That response was translated as “I was angry that she had stabbed me. From the moment I stabbed her, at first, I thought that she had just hit me with her hand.” (Emphasis added). Additionally, several times during the December 31 interview, the translator declined to translate expletives used by appellant.

Appellant moved to suppress the December 29 and 31 statements because of the numerous interpretation errors and because the Miranda warnings were not given verbatim. In a written order and accompanying memorandum, the court denied the motion as it related to the Miranda warnings because the warnings, while not verbatim, were sufficient. The court also denied the suppression motion with regard to the interpretation errors stating:

This [c]ourt has carefully reviewed the transcripts and report made by the [c]ourt appointed expert interpreter. It is evident that at times errors in interpretation were made. However, examining the two statements in their entirety, this [c]ourt is satisfied that the live interpretation done when the statements were taken, sufficiently allowed the law enforcement officers and the defendant to understand what was being communicated back and forth. The quality and quantity of the errors in interpretation, as found by the [e]ourt appointed interpreter, do not rise to a level where admission of the statements would be unjust.
However, credible evidence of specific errors in the interpretation made during the statements of the defendant, if offered by either party should be admitted and considered by the jury in determining the weight to give the statements or any particular answer of the defendant. Before such evidence is offered, this [cjourt will confer further with counsel in regards to the form such evidence should take and the manner in which it should be presented to the jury.

The interpretation errors were still very much at issue during the trial. The state played the tapes of both interviews to the jury. Before the tapes were played, the court considered several motions from appellant. The motions included a motion to exclude some portions of the statements because of confusion and vagueness caused by the interpretation errors and a motion to redact portions of the tapes and transcripts. The court denied the motion to exclude portions of the statements because the court was satisfied that the jury would “hear plenty of interpretation evidence concerning this” and at some point see the transcript detailing the errors. The court further stated that it would let the jury decide “where there are discrepancies and what they believe should be considered to be accurate.” The court agreed to redact portions of the tapes and transcripts. The court redacted the Miranda warnings, an admission appellant had used drugs in the past, and statements that appellant had prior traffic and alcohol-related arrests, and had been previously married.

The judge gave the jury only the original transcript that contained the errors when it listened to the tape of the December 29 interview. Appellant did not object to the admission of that transcript. Before listening to the tape of the December 29 interview, the judge instructed the jury on the purpose of the transcript. He stated:

An audio tape of a statement has been received into evidence. This tape is going to be played so that you can listen to it. You are also going to be provided with a written transcript of the statement to assist you as you listen to the tape. The evidence you are to consider is what you hear on the tape. If what you hear on the audio tape differs from what you read in the written transcript, then you should disregard that portion of the transcript and rely solely on what you hear on the tape.

The jury heard the tape of the December 31 interview the next day. At appellant’s request, the jury was not given a cautionary instruction like the one it had been given when it heard the December 29 statement. Once again, without objection by appellant, the jury only received the original transcript of this interview.

The same day the jury heard the December 29 statement, the expert who listened to and identified the interpretation errors testified. The transcripts she produced were also admitted into evidence. She testified that she generally spent approximately an hour to an hour and one-half translating each minute of a recorded statement. She also testified that she had significant resources available to her to ensure that the translation was accurate. She testified that she has approximately 40 dictionaries and often consults colleagues who are experts in the field if necessary. Appellant’s counsel also elicited testimony from her highlighting a number of the errors made during the original interpretation.

The interpretation errors were also very much at issue at closing arguments. Over the state’s objection, the court allowed the jurors to have copies of the corrected transcript during closing arguments. The jurors also had both sets of transcripts when they deliberated. As part of its closing argument, the state maintained that despite the errors in translation, the statements of appellant were credible and matched the physical evidence in the case. In its closing argument, the defense individually detailed over 40 perceived inaccuracies and omissions in the translation.

In addition to the interpretation errors, the other primary issue at trial was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove a past pattern of domestic abuse. The state proceeded on the theory that appellant had abused the victim in the past and committed this murder as a part of that pattern of abuse. The defense argued that the facts did not constitute first-degree domestic abuse murder because the victim verbally provoked appellant during the argument and physically provoked him by stabbing him.

To prove the past pattern of domestic abuse, the state introduced appellant’s statements, the testimony of witnesses who observed appellant choking the victim, and testimony that appellant admitted to some of the victim’s family members that he had abused her. The state also presented testimony concerning bruising around the victim’s eye. The relevant statements of appellant that the state introduced to prove the past pattern of domestic abuse included appellant’s admissions that he had choked the victim once and that he had slapped her two or three times before the night of murder. The state also relied on the fact that appellant had slapped the victim in the face the night of the murder, and his statement that “everybody knew how we lived.” With regard to the choking incident, three young family members of the victim testified that they observed appellant choking the victim sometime after March of 2001. One of the family members who witnessed the choking incident also testified that after that incident she observed bruises on the victim’s neck. The victim’s aunt testified that appellant told her he had choked the victim during an argument. Similarly, her husband testified that sometime after March of 2001, appellant admitted to him that he had hit the victim. A number of the victim’s family members also testified that sometime after March of 2001, they observed bruising under the victim’s eye. None of these family members, however, knew whether appellant caused the bruising.

Ultimately, the jury found appellant guilty on all counts. The district court imposed a life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of 306 months for the second-degree murder of an unborn child conviction. This appeal followed.

I.

We first consider appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed a murder while engaging in domestic abuse and that he had engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse. “When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this court’s inquiry is limited to whether the fact finder could have reasonably concluded that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assumes that the fact finder believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any contrary evidence.” State v. Welch, 675 N.W.2d 615, 619 (Minn.2004) (internal citation omitted).

Minnesota Statutes § 609.185(a)(6) (2002) provides that whoever “causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life,” is guilty of murder in the first degree. (Emphasis added.) Domestic abuse is defined as an act that

(1) constitutes a violation of section 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, 609.224, 609.2242, 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345, 609.713, or any similar laws of the United States or any other state; and
(2) is committed against the victim who is a family or household member.

Minn.Stat. § 609.185(c). Thus, in order to sustain a conviction for first-degree domestic abuse murder, the state must prove both a past pattern of domestic abuse and that appellant caused the victim’s death while committing domestic abuse.

The state has the burden of proving a past pattern of domestic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, but it need not prove each act constituting that pattern beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cross, 577 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn.1998); see also State v. Manley, 664 N.W.2d 275, 282-83 (Minn.2003). Jurors “are not required to unanimously agree on which acts comprised the past pattern of domestic abuse.” State v. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d 433, 439 (Minn.2001). In the context of domestic abuse, a pattern “suggests a regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.” State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231, 237 (Minn.1995). “The statute does not require proof of a pattern of domestic abuse convictions, or specify a minimum number of incidents which must be proven in order to find a ‘pattern.’ ” Cross, 577 N.W.2d at 727. However, a lone act of domestic abuse cannot constitute a pattern. State v. Grube, 531 N.W.2d 484, 491 (Minn.1995).

Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove a past pattern of domestic abuse because the only credible evidence the state presented demonstrating abuse was that he put his hands around the victim’s neck once. Appellant maintains that the testimony regarding the bruising under the victim’s eyes is irrelevant because there is no evidence connecting the bruising to any actions by him. Appellant asserts that his statements are insufficient to establish a past pattern of domestic abuse because they lack details. The state argues that appellant’s admissions to hitting and choking the victim and his statement that “everybody knew how we lived,” considered with the testimony of family members who observed the choking incident and the bruising, is sufficient to prove a past pattern of domestic abuse.

In order to determine whether a reasonable jury could have found a past pattern of domestic abuse, it is necessary to carefully examine the evidence presented regarding the abuse and the nature of appellant and victim’s relationship as a whole. It is uncontested that sometime after March of 2001, appellant committed an act of domestic abuse when he choked the victim. Three people witnessed the event, and appellant admitted it to police and at least one other individual. Appellant’s own statement that he had slapped the victim on two or three occasions before the night of the murder is also compelling evidence of other incidents of domestic abuse. This statement is buttressed by the testimony of a family member of the victim who testified that appellant told him that he hit the victim sometime after March of 2001. However, the evidence of bruising on the victim’s face cannot support the finding of a past pattern of abuse because there is no evidence that appellant caused the bruising.

Nevertheless, other statements of appellant and his actions on the night of the murder reveal that the choking and slapping were not “isolated” incidents but rather part of a “regular way of acting by committing acts of domestic abuse.” Robinson, 539 N.W.2d at 237. Appellant’s statement that “everybody knew how we lived” in response to a line of questioning about whether other people in the mobile home park would tell authorities about other times he hit the victim is telling. That statement makes it clear that the abuse appellant admitted was part of the regular way in which he related to the victim. The meaning of the statement “everybody knew how we lived” is not ambiguous as appellant contends. The meaning is clear from the context of the questions that investigators asked. The jury could determine on this record that any remaining ambiguity was extinguished by appellant’s statement immediately following his response that “everybody knew how we lived” where he admits that others knew he was abusing the victim. Another revealing statement appellant made concerning the nature of his relationship with the victim is that he thought that the victim was scared of him. Moreover, the fact that appellant slapped the victim in the face during the argument on the night of the murder cannot be ignored in considering the volatile and abusive nature of the relationship between appellant and victim.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the combination of the factors described above was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that appellant engaged in a past pattern of abuse toward the victim. We recognize that the facts of this case do not demonstrate a past pattern of abuse as clearly as the facts of our past decisions. See, e.g., Manley, 664 N.W.2d at 280-81; Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 435-36; Grube, 531 N.W.2d at 487-89. However, the choking and multiple slapping incidents, considered together with the evidence of the pervasive nature of the abuse in the relationship, are adequate to demonstrate a past pattern of abuse.

The evidence is also sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that appellant caused the victim’s death while committing domestic abuse. See Minn.Stat. § 609.185(a)(6). It is reasonable for a jury to find that a defendant caused the death of a victim while committing an act of domestic abuse, when during an argument the defendant slaps the victim, and ultimately stabs her 13 times. Therefore, we hold that sufficient evidence was introduced to satisfy the elements of domestic abuse murder as defined by MinmStat. § 609.185(a)(6).

II.

Appellant next argues that the jury instruction defining “past pattern of domestic abuse” was erroneous because it instructed the jury that no specific number of prior acts were required for it to conclude that there was a past pattern of domestic abuse. Appellant did not object to this instruction at trial. Nevertheless, this court will consider appellant’s argument “if the instructions contain plain error affecting substantial rights or an error of fundamental law.” Cross, 577 N.W.2d at 726. In order to satisfy the plain error test (1) there must be an error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect the defendant’s substantial rights. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 437 (citing State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1998)). If a defendant satisfies this three-prong test, we will only address the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

The instruction here was not in error. In the instruction, the court defined past pattern of domestic abuse as

prior acts of domestic abuse which form a reliable sample of observable traits or acts which characterize an individual’s behavior. No specific number of prior acts is required.
In this case, in deciding whether there has been a past pattern of domestic abuse, you must only consider acts of the Defendant, if any, that occurred before December 29, 2001.

(Emphasis added). This instruction is substantially similar to the instruction the trial court gave in Robinson. 539 N.W.2d at 236. In Robinson, unlike here, the defense objected to the “no specific number of prior acts” language at trial. Id. We affirmed the defendant’s conviction without commenting on the validity of this instruction. See id. at 236-38.

The sentence in the instruction that reads, “no specific number of prior acts is required” is troubling. The language is troubling because that sentence, considered alone, implies that a single act of domestic abuse is sufficient to constitute a pattern. However, the complete instruction and the context surrounding it, make it clear that the jury was instructed that more than one prior act of domestic abuse was required. It is critical to bear in mind that the instruction is defining a “past pattern of domestic abuse.” A pattern is “ ‘a regular, mainly unvarying way of acting or doing.’ ” Robinson, 539 N.W.2d at 237 (quoting Webster’s New World Dictionary 1042 (2d ed.1980)). It is commonly understood that a pattern constitutes more than one act. Based on the language of the entire instruction, a jury could not come to the conclusion that a pattern means anything other than the commonly understood definition. The instruction refers to “acts” in the plural three times, and is clear that the acts must have occurred before the date of the murder. The common meaning of the term pattern and the court’s use of the plural “acts” were sufficient to convey the message to the jury that more than one act was required in order to find a past pattern of domestic abuse. We therefore hold that the jury instruction was proper.

Because the dissent neglects to consider the impact of the plain error test in its analysis, we note that even if the instruction was in error, the error was not plain. In Crowsbreast, the defendant challenged a jury instruction because it did not instruct the jury that the state needed to prove each prior act of domestic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. 629 N.W.2d at 437. The same instruction had been challenged unsuccessfully in Cross. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 437 (citing Cross, 577 N.W.2d at 726-27). However, after Cross’s publication, a U.S. Supreme Court case cast some doubt on Cross’s holding. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 437-38 (citing Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999)). We held that because of the holding in Cross that the state need not prove each act of domestic abuse beyond a reasonable doubt, if the instruction was in error, that error was not plain. Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 438. We noted that any doubt about whether Cross remained good law in light of the Supreme Court decision undermined Crowsbreast’s plain error argument because the “doubt confirms that if there was error, it was not plain.” Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 438. Similarly, the court here gave an instruction substantially similar to the instruction in Robinson where we affirmed the conviction without comment on the instruction. See 539 N.W.2d at 286. Thus, because we affirmed a conviction, which utilized a substantially similar instruction, and did not find error in that instruction, if there was an error in the instruction in this case, the error was not plain. See Crowsbreast, 629 N.W.2d at 438.

III.

The next question we must decide is whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting appellant’s December 29 and 31 statements because the statements contained interpretation errors. “Rulings on evidentiary matters rest within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse such evidentiary rulings absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Roman Nose, 667 N.W.2d 386, 392 (Minn.2003). Defendants have a due process right to a fair trial and a defendant “is entitled to a new trial if the errors, when taken cumulatively, had the effect of denying [a defendant] a fair trial.” State v. Keeton, 589 N.W.2d 85, 91 (Minn.1998). Specifically, in evaluating the translation of testimony, this court asks whether the “testimony was ‘on the whole adequate and accurate.’ ” State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824, 832 (Minn.1987). It is important to bear in mind that “[translation is an art more than a science, and there is no such thing as a perfect translation.” Id. A defendant bears the burden of proving that the translation was inadequate. State v. Montalvo, 324 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Minn.1982).

An accused who does not speak English has the right to have a “qualified interpreter” present at an interrogation. Minn.Stat. § 611.32, subd. 2 (2002). This right is not a constitutional one and violation of the statute does not require the application of the exclusionary rule. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d at 830; accord State v. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d 245, 253 (Minn.1997). Nonetheless, in order to ensure the admissibility of statements taken with an interpreter, prudent police investigators should comply with the statutory requirements and, additionally, either record the statement and/or reduce it to writing in the defendant’s primary language. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d at 831.

The issue here is not whether there were translation errors; it is whether in light of these errors admitting the statements deprived appellant of a fair trial. Appellant argues that four errors in the translation process, taken together, merit suppression of his statements. First, the interpreter was not certified; second, she did not take an oath before translating; third, the statements were not transcribed into Spanish for appellant to sign;- and fourth, the statements included 47 identified errors. The state contends that, as a whole, the translations of appellant’s statements were adequate and accurate and, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statements.

Appellant’s first three arguments for suppressing the statements are without merit. Minnesota Statutes § 611.32, subd. 2, does not require that an interpreter translating during an interrogation be certified. The statute only requires that the interpreter be qualified. See id. In Dominguez-Ramirez, we declined to suppress a defendant’s statement when the interpreter was arguably “not sufficiently fluent to * * * meet the statutory requirements for a qualified interpreter” and the interpreter admitted that his Spanish pronunciation “[was] not as good as others” and that “there are Spanish words he does not understand.” 563 N.W.2d at 253-54. Here, the interpreter is a native Spanish speaker who had previously translated in court proceedings in several counties. She is more qualified then the interpreter in Dominguez-Ramirez and the fact that she was not certified does not merit suppression of appellant’s statements.

Similarly, the failure of the interpreter to take an oath does not merit suppression. Minnesota Statutes § 611.33, subd. 2, requires that interpreters take an oath before translating. However, in Dominguez-Ramirez, the police officer who acted as an interpreter violated section 611.33, subdivision 2, by not taking an oath, and we declined to suppress the defendant’s statement. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d at 253. We also decline to suppress appellant’s statement on this basis.

The state’s failure to transcribe appellant’s statements into Spanish is. not in error. In Mitjans, we suggested that prudent investigators consider seriously either or both recording and transcribing statements. 408 N.W.2d at 831. Here, the statements were recorded. Thus, not transcribing the statements is not at odds with our pronouncement in Mitjans. See id.

As discussed in detail above, a number of errors were made in the translation of both the December 29 and 31 statements. There was no objection to the admission of either the two tapes or the two transcripts. In fact, there was a cautionary instruction given when the first transcript was introduced and appellant specifically requested that no cautionary instruction be given when the second transcript was introduced. Furthermore, the majority of the errors were minor, such as translating “stabbed” as “cut,” but there were a few more serious errors. However, none of these errors changed the fundamental nature of appellant’s confession. See Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d at 255 (declining to suppress a defendant’s statement where the interpretation errors may have caused the defendant’s interrogation to take longer but did not make the confession coercive). That is to say, while some of the errors were more serious than others, the errors did not change the basic character of appellant’s confession or compel him to confess. Instead, the errors were pointed out to the jury through testimony, corrected transcripts, arguments, and instructions.

The trial court was confronted with a difficult situation, but it went to great lengths to ensure that these errors did not deny appellant a fair trial. The court delayed the start of the trial and brought in an expert translator as soon as it was notified of the interpretation errors. The expert testified at length on direct and cross-examination about the errors. Portions of the tapes and transcripts were redacted. Additionally, when it denied appellant’s motion to suppress the statements, the court indicated that it had thoroughly reviewed the transcript and that the quantity and quality of the errors did not merit suppression. In that ruling, the court also stated that it would admit “credible evidence of specific errors in the interpretation” at trial. The judge also instructed the jury that the tapes of the interrogation were the evidence and that the transcripts were merely an aid. Furthermore, the jurors were inundated with descriptions of the errors. Appellant’s counsel spent a considerable amount of time detailing the errors during closing arguments, and the jurors were provided with the corrected transcripts during closing arguments and deliberation.

That is not to say that the trial court’s approach should serve as a model in similar cases. The court knew that there were errors in the translation before the trial began and yet it admitted a transcript that both parties agreed contained some translation errors. The court either should have given the jury only the corrected transcripts or instructed the jurors to disregard the portions of the original transcript that contained the errors. The absence of such an instruction, however, is not critical to our analysis because the errors were described in detail to the jury. While the manner in which the court handled the interpretation errors was somewhat flawed, considering all of the facts, the admission of the December 29 and 31 tapes and transcripts was not a clear abuse of discretion and did not deny appellant his due process right to a fair trial.

IV.

The final issue is whether the trial court unfairly exaggerated appellant’s criminality when it imposed a consecutive sentence for the second-degree murder of an unborn child conviction. We generally “will not interfere with a trial court’s discretion in sentencing unless the sentence is disproportionate to the offense.” State v. Hough, 585 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Minn.1998). “A trial court’s decision regarding permissive, consecutive sentences will not be disturbed unless the resulting sentence unfairly exaggerates the criminality of the defendant’s conduct.” Id. A trial court may impose separate sentences “when a defendant is convicted of multiple felonies involving more than one victim” even if the convictions arise from a single behavioral incident. State v. Sanders, 598 N.W.2d 650, 656-57 (Minn.1999); see also Minn. Sentencing Guidelines II.F.2. We have “consistently affirmed the imposition of consecutive life sentences” in multiple victim homicides. State v. Wilson, 539 N.W.2d 241, 246 (Minn.1995). Considering the facts of this case, a consecutive sentence of 306 months for second-degree murder of an unborn child is not disproportionate to the offense and does not unfairly exaggerate appellant’s criminality.

Affirmed.

PAUL H. ANDERSON, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. I do so because I do not agree with the majority on two key issues. First, the district court erred when it gave its jury instruction defining “past pattern of domestic abuse” because the instruction does not clearly state that more than one prior act of domestic abuse is required for there to be a past pattern. Second, the district court erred when it permitted the original error-ridden transcripts of Sanchez-Diaz’s interrogations to be submitted to the jury. Together, these errors denied Sanchez-Diaz a fair trial.

Sanchez-Diaz was convicted of first-degree domestic abuse murder under Minn. Stat. § 609.185(6) (2002). Section 609.185(6) reads as follows:

609.185 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:
(6) causes the death of a human being while committing domestic abuse, when the perpetrator has engaged in a past pattern of domestic abuse upon the victim or upon another family or household member and the death occurs under eir-cumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life; * * *.

In State v. Grube, we considered the meaning of the phrase “past pattern of domestic abuse” and we stated that “[a] lone act, under any reasonable definition of the word ‘pattern,’ does not and cannot constitute a pattern.” 531 N.W.2d 484, 491 (Minn.1995). For Sanchez-Diaz to be convicted as charged, the jury needed to find that he committed two or more past acts of domestic abuse. Because of the jury instructions the court gave, we have no way of knowing whether the jury actually reached such a conclusion.

The court presented the jurors with the following definition of “past pattern of domestic abuse”:

prior acts of domestic abuse which form a reliable sample of observable traits or acts which characterize an individual’s behavior. No specific number of prior acts is required.
In this case, in deciding whether there has been a past pattern of domestic abuse, you must only consider acts of the defendant, if any, that occurred before December 29, 2001.

(Emphasis added.) This instruction is not found in the Minnesota CRIMJIG; however, the language in the first two sentences is identical to the language used by the district court in State v. Robinson, 539 N.W.2d 231, 236 (Minn.1995). In Robinson, we concluded that the absence of a precise statutory definition for “pattern” did not render section 609.185(6) unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 237. Unfortunately, we did not comment on the validity of the specific instruction.

The majority concludes that the instruction “was sufficient to convey the message to the jury that more than one act was required in order to find a past pattern of domestic abuse.” In support of this conclusion, the majority relies on the fact that the plural word “acts” appears in the instruction three times. But such an analysis ignores the impact of the following sentence: “NO specific number of prior acts is required.” The majority concedes that this sentence is “troubling.” Reduced to its most basic form, this sentence says, “No specific number is required.” The majority asserts that the instruction’s intended meaning is saved by the definition of pattern, the context surrounding this sentence, and the use of the word “acts.” I submit that this is not so and to illustrate my point, I urge consideration of the following sentences when read standing alone:

“No specific number of persons is required.”
“No specific number of widgets is required.”
“No specific number of [whatever] is required.”

As I read these illustrative sentences, it is clear to me that no specific number of persons, widgets, or whatever is required; thus, less than two will obviously satisfy the requirement. For this reason, the inclusion of the sentence, “No specific number of prior acts is required,” makes the instruction ambiguous at best.

Jury instructions must fairly and correctly state the applicable law. Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., 649 N.W.2d 142, 147 (Minn.2002). First-degree domestic abuse murder is a serious offense for which the penalty is life in prison. To give the jury an instruction that permits a conviction without a clear requirement that there must be at least two prior acts of domestic abuse is plain error.

The district court also erred when it permitted the original error-ridden transcripts of Sanehez-Diaz’s interrogations to be submitted to the jury when the jury listened to the audiotape of the interrogations. Sanchez-Diaz’s native language is Spanish. For this reason, it was necessary to utilize the services of a Spanish/English interpreter when the police interrogated him. The record indicates that the police did make a diligent effort to retain a qualified interpreter. Nevertheless, the interpreter used by the police made numerous significant errors when interpreting. Sanchez-Diaz points out that there were more than 40 such errors, some of which have been detailed by the majority, some of which I detail here:

Interpreter cut Correct stabbed
argument discussion
team of felonies crime scene team
palpable physical
shocked scared
two years two months
“six months” did not know how far along victim’s pregnancy was
“Where did you hit her?” ’’Where did you stab the victim?”
“And I took it away from her, because she got scared and pushed-pulled back.” ’’And I* * * removed [the knife] from myself. Because she got scared and jumped back.”
“When I pulled the knife out in the living room.” ’’When she — when I took the knife out of myself in the living room.”
“And I was putting a sweater on [the] baby.” ’’And when I was changing the baby, I was putting on his jacket so I could leave.”
“It was a fight that wasn’t very serious.” ’’But it was a very serious fight.”
Describing knife: “I think it’s too big.” ’’because it wasn’t very big, I think.”
“I was angry that she had stabbed me. From the moment I stabbed her, at first, I thought that she had just hit me with her hand.” ”1 was mad that she had cut me. At the time I felt the cut, I — I didn’t feel anything, I thought she’d hit me with her hand because I didn’t turn.”
Interpreter declined to interpret expletives. Numerous expletives.

Many of these errors qualify as textbook examples of how interpretation errors can compromise a defendant’s right to be understood. Moreover, these errors potentially had a substantive bearing on San-ehez-Diaz’s assertion at trial that Vazquez “verbally provoked” him and stabbed him in the chest as he was getting ready to leave the mobile home with the baby.

Accurate interpretation of a foreign language is as much an art as it is a science. Good interpreters are highly-skilled individuals. Unfortunately, such individuals are in short supply. This reality is juxtaposed against the reality of the need for an expeditious investigation of a crime, which need may require the police to proceed under less than ideal circumstances. I find no fault with how the police proceeded with the interrogation of Sanchez-Diaz. They acted in a diligent and conscientious manner to obtain a qualified interpreter. I find fault, however, with how the original error-ridden transcripts of the interrogations were dealt with at trial.

At the time of trial, the interpretation errors were well-known to all parties. When informed by the court-appointed interpreter that the interpreter was concerned about “significant” interpretation errors, the district court properly asked the interpreter to review the audiotapes and to produce a transcript. This review revealed that there were indeed numerous significant interpretation errors. Despite everyone’s knowledge of these “significant” errors and over the objections of defense counsel, the audiotapes of both the first and second interrogations were played for the jury while at the same time the jurors were provided with the original, error-ridden transcripts.

While I do not agree with the defense’s claim that Sanchez-Diaz’s interrogations should have been suppressed in their entirety, it was error to submit the original, error-ridden transcripts in their error-ridden form. See State v. Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d 245, 250 n. 2 (Minn.1997). The errors in the transcripts were not Sanchez-Diaz’s fault; rather, they were the result of the criminal justice system’s failure to accurately interpret how he responded to questions during his interrogations. At trial, Sanchez-Diaz invoked his constitutional right not to testify; therefore, the interrogation transcripts provided the jury with its only insight into his state of mind. The result was that the jurors heard the inaccurate interpretation on the audiotapes as they followed along on the error-ridden transcripts. Only at the time of the defense’s closing argument were the jurors given the corrected transcripts, after which they were sent off to deliberate with 227 pages to review and compare. Under such circumstances, it is highly likely that the jurors, after already having been distracted from the truth by the error-ridden transcripts, were overwhelmed, possibly confused, and may even have disregarded the correct transcripts and the substantive information they contained.

I do not find Dominguez-Ramirez to be persuasive authority for an affirmance. The key issue before us in Dominguez-Ramirez was whether the statement given by the defendant was involuntary because the interpreter’s incompetence caused the interrogation to be coercive. 563 N.W.2d at 254. We concluded that while the interrogation errors were unquestionably serious, they were “few in number,” did not make the “interrogation coercive,” and did not make the interrogation “deceptive or stress-inducing.” Id. at 255, 256. As a result, we held that the shortcomings of the interpreter did not make the interrogation coercive. Id. at 256. The issue here — the submission to the jury of error-ridden transcripts — is far different from the coerciveness of a defendant’s confession.

Moreover, in Dominguez-Ramirez, a qualified interpreter listened to a tape recording of the police interrogation, translated the Spanish into English, and then made corrections to the transcript provided by the police. Id. at 250. A copy of this corrected transcript was admitted into evidence and provided to each juror. Id. at 250 & n. 2. Importantly, we cautioned district courts about providing jurors with copies of transcripts that are inaccurate. We said:

Dominguez-Ramirez, 563 N.W.2d at 250 n. 2.

The majority concedes the manner in which the court dealt with the interpretation errors was “somewhat flawed.” I would eliminate the qualifying adverb — it was flawed. The parties agreed that the transcripts were inaccurate, but did not agree on their admission. Yet, the court permitted the inaccurate transcripts to be submitted to the jury with the audiotape. Because the interrogation transcripts were ridden with numerous significant interpretation errors, their submission to the jury helped deny Sanchez-Diaz a fair trial.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the district court made plain errors affecting Sanchez-Diaz’s substantial rights. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

PAGE, Justice

(dissenting).

I join in the dissent of Justice Paul H. Anderson.

      . At trial, that interpreter testified that since the time of the interviews she passed phase one of the two-phase court interpreter certification exam. She also testified that Spanish is her native language and that before the interviews she had interpreted in court proceedings in various counties.

      . In the December 31 interview, appellant stated that the victim was 6-months pregnant.

      . Moreover, in its closing argument, the state reiterated that in order to find a past pattern of domestic abuse the jury had to find more than one prior incident of abuse.

      . The dissent takes the "no specific number of prior acts” language out of context, instead of considering it in context with the entire instruction.

      .Because there is no model instruction for domestic abuse murder, we refer the matter of drafting a model instruction to the Criminal Jury Instructions Committee.

      . Indeed, no translation can be expected to be error free. ''[I]n every case there will be room for disagreement among expert translators over some aspects of the translation." Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d at 832.

      . The dissent does not cite any substantive interpretation error that goes to a critical element of the crime. The central issue is of guilt. Appellant did not deny that he stabbed the victim. While the quality of the translation could have been better, to reverse on translation errors that have no weight or relevance to the issue of guilt, is to elevate form over substance and would redefine what it means to receive a fair and impartial trial.


author: MINGE, Judge.

text:
    Glen KUSH, Respondent, v. Neil J. MATHISON, Jr., Appellant.
    No. A03-1686.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    July 20, 2004.

      Robin C. Merritt, Hanft Fride, P.A., Duluth, MN, for respondent.
    Melanie P. Persellin, Michael E. Orman, Orman Nord & Spott Law Office, Duluth, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by HALBROOKS, Presiding Judge; TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge; and MINGE, Judge.
   OPINION

MINGE, Judge.

Appellant challenges the district court’s issuance of a harassment restraining order, arguing that the evidence does not support the finding that his conduct constituted harassment. Because the record supports the district court’s findings, we affirm.

FACTS

Appellant Neil Mathison and respondent Glen Kush are next-door neighbors. Access to respondent’s property is made by use of a written easement that burdens appellant’s property. Despite numerous surveys, the parties are unable to agree on the precise location of the lot lines and easement, and an ongoing dispute between them has developed. Appellant has placed numerous “no parking” signs on his fence and property to deter respondent and others from parking on the easement so as to block the gateway that provides an alternate entrance to appellant’s property. There is also an ongoing dispute regarding respondent’s removal of these signs.

In October 2001, shortly after respondent purchased the property adjacent to appellant’s, an incident occurred in which respondent allegedly caused damage to appellant’s fence by backing into it with machinery. Later that day, the wind blew that portion of the fence down. When appellant learned of the damage, he called respondent and left him a message. When respondent returned the call, appellant asked him, ‘What are you going to f — ing do about the wind blowing the fence down” and told him, “You’re going to regret the day you ever bought this f — ing place.”

Following this incident, appellant placed “no parking” signs around the property and painted lines on the ground to mark the property line. Respondent testified that one such sign, placed in the ground near his garage, interfered with his ability to place his boat inside the garage. Respondent also testified that appellant walks into his yard occasionally to threaten either respondent or respondent’s brother.

On July 21, 2003, appellant entered respondent’s property uninvited and pounded on respondent’s door. Appellant yelled, “Hey, you S.O.B., when are you going to fix the fence and put the signs back up?” The minor daughter of respondent’s girlfriend was present at the time. Respondent testified that when he went outside with appellant to look at the fence, appellant proceeded to swear at respondent “at the top of his lungs.” Appellant also called respondent a “f — ing idiot.”

Respondent filed an affidavit and petition for a harassment restraining order following the July 2003 incident. Appellant subsequently also filed a petition for a harassment restraining order against respondent and the district court held separate evidentiary hearings. The district court granted respondent’s petition, issued the harassment restraining order, and this appeal follows.

ISSUE

Did the district court abuse its discretion in issuing a harassment restraining order against appellant?

ANALYSIS

An appellate court reviews a district court’s grant of a harassment restraining order under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Witchell v. Witchell, 606 N.W.2d 730, 731 (Minn.App.2000). A district court’s findings of fact will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard is given to the district court’s opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses. Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. But this court will reverse the issuance of a restraining order if it is not supported by sufficient evidence. See Bjergum v. Bjergum, 392 N.W.2d 604, 606-07 (Minn.App.1986).

Harassment is defined as “repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security or privacy of another.... ” Minn.Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1) (2002). But inappropriate or argumentative statements alone cannot be considered harassment. Beach v. Jeschke, 649 N.W.2d 502, 503 (Minn.App.2002). A court may grant a harassment restraining order when “the court finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.” Minn.Stat. § 609.748, subd. 5(a)(3) (Supp. 2003). A district court must base its findings in support of a restraining order on testimony and documents properly admitted. Anderson v. Lake, 536 N.W.2d 909, 911-12 (Minn.App.1995).

Appellant argues that the record does not support the finding that his actions constitute harassment. First, appellant argues that his statements in the October 2001 incident could not be “intrusive or unwanted” because respondent had called appellant. We find no authority that excuses conduct based upon which party made the phone call. We are not persuaded by the contention that appellant’s statements were less intrusive merely because respondent, in returning appellant’s call, physically dialed the telephone. Appellant initiated the contact and respondent responded by returning the call. Nothing in the statute precludes its application in this situation.

Next, appellant argues that the district court erred in finding that the October 2001 and July 2003 incidents constituted harassment because it ignored the circumstances surrounding the incidents, which stemmed from his displeasure regarding the damaged fence and ongoing property dispute. The question before the district court, however, was not why appellant conducted himself in the manner he did, but whether appellant’s actions had, or were intended to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of respondent. See Minn.Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1).

Appellant next argues that, even if the two specific incidents in October 2001 and July 2003 can be considered harassing incidents, the lapse of 22 months between the incidents must negate the finding that the incidents were “repeated.” We note that although the district court order only specifically details two incidents, the lack of specificity is not fatal to the district court’s findings. See Davidson v. Webb, 535 N.W.2d 822, 823-24 (Minn.App.1995) (affirming the district court’s finding of harassment even though witness could not remember specific dates or conversations). Here, the order and the record go further in noting intervening incidents of harassing conduct.

In addition to its findings regarding the two specific incidents, the district court found that appellant’s other harassing conduct gave context to an ongoing situation. This conduct included harassing face-to-face encounters, telephone threats of physical violence, use of crude and profane language, blocking or restricting access to respondent’s property with multiple “no parking” signs, calling respondent abusive and profane names, and uninvited visits to respondent’s property. The district court found that appellant had threatened to “kick his [respondent’s] f— ing ass.” Further, respondent also testified to appellant “constantly telling” him that appellant would “make me regret the day I bought the property.... And he’s constantly threatening me — he’s going to bring me to court and it’s going to cost me thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend myself and he’s going to wind up with my property....” With due regard given to the district court’s opportunity to determine the credibility of witnesses, we find that the record amply supports the district court’s findings that appellant’s conduct constituted “repeated incidents.”

Finally, appellant claims that respondent failed to show that the October 2001 and July 2003 incidents caused a “substantial adverse effect ... on the safety, security, or privacy” of respondent. Appellant argues that the record does not support the district court’s findings that his behavior was “intended to have a substantial adverse affect on the safety and security of [respondent], by intimidating him and threatening him in an effort to force [appellant’s] will and control over [respondent].” The district court concluded that appellant’s “behavior has had a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security and privacy of [respondent] in that he feels apprehensive and fearful of [appellant] based on [appellant’s] threats and intimidation. If [appellant] acted upon his threats, an obvious, substantial, adverse effect would follow.”

The record amply supports the district court’s findings. At trial, when asked if appellant had made any phone calls that he considered to be threatening, respondent specifically testified to the October 2001 incident. Furthermore, respondent also testified that the July 2003 incident caused him fear and apprehension. Respondent went on to state that “[appellant is] constantly threatening to kick my f-ing ass and make me regret the day I bought my place” and noted that appellant’s behavior scares and intimidates his family.

The determination of whether certain conduct constitutes harassment may be judged from both an objective standard, when assessing the effect the conduct has on the typical victim, and a subjective standard, to the extent the court may determine the harasser’s intent. We note the statutory language includes incidents “that have ... or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect.” Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1(a)(1). When a district court determines that repeated conduct is objectively harassing, it is not precluded from making findings that harassing incidents occurred simply because the defendant suggests that his/her conduct could be “handled” by people with significant fortitude or that the intended victim has such fortitude. Here, respondent’s testimony that he “can handle” the effects of appellant’s behavior does not negate evidence that appellant’s conduct was unwanted and intrusive, and had a substantial adverse effect on respondent. We conclude that this record contains clear, repeated incidents that support the district court’s determination that appellant’s conduct objectively constitutes harassment.

Conversely, we note that even lesser levels of conduct may still support an order when calculated to harass a fragile person. We also note that such behavior often affects individuals other than the directly intended victim. In many cases, as here, children are present and may either witness the behavior first-hand or develop a sense of fear given the substantial effects the harassing conduct has on the adults around them.

We do not suggest that the law mandates “Minnesota nice” or some artificial code of civility, as appellant contends. The legislature has determined that certain conduct is sufficiently offensive and disturbing that it is not tolerable in eivi-lized society. Individuals are free to express outrage that someone has damaged their property. But there are limits to such expressions in order to keep peace in the community. See N.Y. State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339, 1343 (2nd Cir.1989) (“There is no constitutional privilege to assault or harass an individual ....”); cf. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572, 62 S.Ct. 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942) (concluding that fighting words are not protected speech); Welsh v. Johnson, 508 N.W.2d 212, 215 (Minn.App.1993) (stating that free speech is subject to “reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.”). To this end, the harassment laws place carefully limited restraints on individuals whose conduct goes beyond an acceptable expression of outrage and civilized conduct, and instead causes a substantial adverse effect on another’s safety, security or privacy. The determination of what constitutes an adequate factual basis for a harassment order is left to the discretion of the district courts. Here, the district court properly found that appellant crossed that line.

DECISION

Because the record amply supports the district court’s findings, we conclude that the issuance of the harassment restraining order was not an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

      . Respondent argues that appellant failed to provide a full transcript for the purposes of this appeal and that evidence from the separate hearing on appellant’s counter-petition for a harassment restraining order should also be considered. We find no merit in this argument. There is no indication in the record before us that the district court considered evidence from the hearing on appellant's petition as substantive evidence for respondent's petition. Accordingly, we only consider that evidence from the proceedings on respondent's petition. See Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 110.01.


author: HARTEN, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. David VOSS, Appellant.
    No. A03-1241.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    July 20, 2004.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, and Paul M. Malone, Murray County Attorney, Slayton, MN, for respondent.
    John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Roy G. Spurbeck, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by MINGE, Presiding Judge, HARTEN, Judge, and HALBROOKS, Judge.
   OPINION

HARTEN, Judge.

Appellant challenges his convictions of and stayed sentences for two counts of fifth-degree controlled substance offense, arguing that firefighters, who were inside appellant’s residence after extinguishing a fire and searching for the cause of the fire and for hotspots, exceeded the scope of their lawful presence by opening a disconnected basement freezer, where they discovered marijuana. Because the state failed to meet its burden to justify the search, and the state has not shown that the convictions were unattributable to the marijuana discovered in the freezer, we reverse.

FACTS

Appellant David Voss began renting a farmhouse from Henry Van Dam in 1987. Although no written lease was signed, appellant and Van Dam agreed that appellant would maintain and pay for any repairs to the property in exchange for occupying the house. By September 2001, appellant and his son had moved out of the house and his daughter lived there with her boyfriend. In late November 2001, appellant’s daughter and her boyfriend moved out of the farmhouse.

On 12 January 2002, appellant and his son returned some of appellant’s belongings to the house. After they finished, appellant’s daughter-in-law arrived and they noticed smoke billowing from the top of the house. Appellant’s son called 911 to report the fire.

A deputy sheriff was the first to arrive at the property and, after determining that nobody was inside the house, remained at the end of the driveway to help control traffic. By the time two local volunteer fire departments arrived, very dense smoke had filled the house, and the flames extended from the floor to the ceiling on the main level. Appellant assisted the firefighters by describing to them the house’s floor plan before they entered. Once the fire was extinguished, several teams of firefighters searched throughout the house for hotspots and smoldering materials. One team opened an upstairs bedroom closet and discovered several marijuana plants growing inside. Another team of firefighters went into the basement and discovered three marijuana plants and a fluorescent light inside a chest freezer. The firefighters told the deputy sheriff about the marijuana plants, which were photographed and seized.

Appellant was subsequently charged with attempted third-degree controlled substance crime (sale/cultivation of five or more grams of marijuana), fifth-degree controlled substance crime (possession), and fifth-degree controlled substance crime (sale/cultivation). At the omnibus hearing, appellant moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the firefighters’ search, arguing that the deputy should have acquired a search warrant before entering the house and seizing the evidence. The district court denied the motion, finding that the deputy sheriff “did not make any search of the house and that the seizures were proper under the circumstances of this case.” The jury found appellant guilty of the fifth-degree offenses. He now challenges the district court’s denial of his suppression motion.

ISSUE

Did the district court err in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the basement freezer?

ANALYSIS

When reviewing pre-trial orders on motions to suppress evidence, where the facts are undisputed and the trial court’s decision is a question of law, reviewing courts may independently review the facts to determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed. State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The state claims that, because the firefighters’ search of the residence was not state action, the Fourth Amendment does not apply. The district court did not address whether the firefighters’ search of the residence for hotspots constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

“A search occurs whenever government agents intrude upon an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” State v. Carter, 569 N.W.2d 169, 176 (Minn.1997) (citing California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 1811, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986)). Administrative searches by firefighters, like searches by law enforcement, are subject to the Fourth Amendment. Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 506, 98 S.Ct. 1942, 1948, 56 L.Ed.2d 486 (1978).

[T]here is no diminution in a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy nor in the protection of the Fourth Amendment simply because the official conducting the search wears the uniform of a firefighter rather than a policeman, or because his purpose is to ascertain the cause of a fire rather than to look for evidence of a crime, or because the fire might have been started deliberately. Searches for administrative purposes, like searches for evidence of crime, are encompassed by the Fourth Amendment.

Id. Therefore, a firefighter’s search of a residence for hotspots is a search subject to constitutional limitations.

Before searching an individual’s residence, government agents generally must first obtain a warrant. State v. Bunce, 669 N.W.2d 394, 398 (Minn.App.2003), review denied (Minn. 16 Dec. 2003). The state bears the burden to justify a warrantless search. State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Minn.2001). But firefighters need not obtain a warrant before entering a building to fight a fire because “[a] burning building clearly presents an exigency of sufficient proportions to render a warrantless entry ‘reasonable.’ ” Tyler, 436 U.S. at 509, 98 S.Ct. at 1950. Once in the building, exigent circumstances allow firefighters and officials to remain on the premises for a “reasonable time to investigate the cause of the blaze,” and any evidence that is in plain view may be seized. Id. at 510, 98 S.Ct. at 1950. Appellant concedes that the firefighters’ search into the upstairs closet was reasonable as part of their search for hotspots and that the marijuana plants discovered in the closet were in plain view. But appellant argues that the search of the basement freezer exceeded the scope of the firefighters’ reasonable search for hotspots and that the marijuana discovered inside was not in plain view.

When ascertaining a “reasonable time to investigate,” courts must consider and balance the exigencies that confront firefighters and the individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy. Id. at 510 n. 6, 98 S.Ct. at 1950 n. 6. “If, for example, the administrative search is justified by the immediate need to ensure against rekindling, the scope of the search may be no broader than reasonably necessary to achieve its end.” Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287, 294, 104 S.Ct. 641, 647, 78 L.Ed.2d 477 (1984).

Minnesota courts have not addressed the permissible scope of a firefighter’s search during a “reasonable time to investigate” after a fire has been extinguished. But the Idaho Court of Appeals held that where a firefighter’s search is not for fire investigation purposes, the search is not justified by exigent circumstances. State v. Buterbaugh, 138 Idaho 96, 57 P.3d 807, 811-12 (2002). In Buterbaugh, a firefighter discovered a hotspot in the basement, and electrical cords led from the hotspot to a large wooden box. Id. at 809. The court determined that the firefighter’s search inside the box was justified as “legitimately a part of his investigation of the origin of the fire.” Id. at 811. But the court held that another firefighter’s routine walk-through and inventory search of upstairs bedrooms, where the fire had not reached, was not for the purpose of investigating the fire and was an illegal war-rantless search. Id. at 811.

Here, the z'ecord reveals that the firefighters’ search of the basement was for fire investigation purposes. At the omnibus hearing, the deputy explained that a search of the basement was necessary because, although the fire did not appear to reach the basement, hot embers may burn through a floor. Accordingly, the firefighters could lawfully discover any evidence in the basement that was in plain view. But the marijuana plants were not in plain view; the firefighters opened the top lid of the freezer and found the plants inside. See State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243, 254 (Minn.2003) (where intrusion into a place is not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement, the seizure of evidence found inside is also invalid).

One would suppose that firefighters who are searching for hotspots after a fire may have articulable cause to open appliances or containers. Here, the problem is that the state did not establish that the search into the freezer was for fire investigation purposes: the deputy testified that he believed the firefighters “had a suspicion that the cord was not plugged in on the freezer and there was a hasp on the outside of the freezer which was not locked,” and that “curiosity” led the firefighters to open the top lid of the freezer. Surprisingly, the state offered no further evidence to justify opening the freezer lid. Thus, the record justifies the intrusion as a matter of satisfying the firefighters’ “curiosity.” Accordingly, we conclude that the state failed to meet its burden to justify the warrantless search, and the district court was obliged to suppress the evidence obtained from the freezer.

Notwithstanding the erroneous admission of evidence obtained from the freezer, appellant’s convictions nonetheless may stand so long as they were “surely unattributable to the error.” State v. Juarez, 572 N.W.2d 286, 291-92 (Minn.1997) (quotation omitted) (error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). Appellant was convicted of two counts of fifth-degree controlled substance crime for violating Minn.Stat. § 152.025, subds. 1(1), 2(1) (2002), which prohibit the sale/cultivation and possession of one or more mixtures containing marijuana, “except a small amount of marijuana.” A “small amount of marijuana” consists of 42.5 grams or less. Minn.Stat. § 152.01, subd. 16 (2002). Because the marijuana came from two sources within the house — the upstairs closet and the basement freezer— and resulted from one seizure that was lawful and the other unlawful, in order to convict appellant of fifth-degree controlled substance crime for the upstairs marijuana, the evidence must prove that the upstairs location provided more than 42.5 grams of marijuana. The evidence does not so indicate. At trial, the deputy testified that the seized marijuana plants from both locations were packaged and sent to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) for analysis. The BCA report revealed that one package contained 21.0 grams of marijuana and a second package contained 40.4 grams of marijuana. But the deputy did not specify how the marijuana plants had been packaged.

Because the record is unclear as to how the marijuana plants were packaged and because each package alone consists of a “small amount of marijuana,” we conclude that both guilty verdicts were not surely unattributable to the admission of the marijuana discovered in the basement freezer. Accordingly, appellant’s convictions are reversed.

DECISION

Because a firefighter’s search is subject to constitutional analysis and the state failed to justify the search of the contents of appellant’s basement freezer, we conclude that the evidence of marijuana plants found inside the freezer should have been suppressed. Because appellant was convicted of possessing marijuana found at two different locations in the house, and the amount of marijuana was not specified by location, we reverse appellant’s convictions.

Reversed.

      . Appellant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and challenges his stayed sentences because both offenses involved a single behavioral incident. Because we reverse appellant's convictions, we need not address these issues.

      . Appellant claims that the state waived argument of this issue on appeal by failing to raise it at the district court. But at the omnibus hearing, the state argued that no search took place. We note that “[a] respondent can raise alternative arguments on appeal in defense of the underlying decision when there Eire sufficient facts in the record for the appellate court to consider the alternative theories, there is legal support for the arguments, and the alternative grounds would not expand the relief previously granted.” State v. Grunig, 660 N.W.2d 134, 137 (Minn.2003).

      .A search by a private individual is also subject to Fourth Amendment analysis when the individual acts as an instrument or agent of the state when conducting the search. State v. Buswell, 460 N.W.2d 614, 618 (Minn.1990). Here, the firefighters who searched the residence were members of volunteer fire departments. But the record is clear that they entered and searched the residence in their capacity as firefighters, not as private citizens. See id. (factors to determine if a search by a private party is subject to Fourth Amendment limitations include: "(1) whether the government knew of and acquiesced in the search and (2) whether the search was conducted to assist law enforcement efforts or to further the private party's own end”).

      . The state claims that the firefighters had consent to search the entire house after appellant and his son called the fire department and showed the firefighters how to get through the house to put out the fire. A warrantless search of a residence is justified when a person with common authority over the residence consents to the search. State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 519 (Minn.1999). But the scope of a consent search is limited by the terms of its authorization. Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649, 656, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 2401, 65 L.Ed.2d 410 (1980). Even if appellant consented to the search of the residence by reporting the fire to the fire department, the record does not indicate that the search into the disconnected freezer removed from the fire area was within the scope of appellant’s consent for the firefighters to enter and search the residence to put out the fire.