author: DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge.

text:
    In re ST. LOUIS COUNTY, petitioner, Appellant, v. S.D.S., Respondent.
    No. C9-99-981.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    March 7, 2000.

      Alan L. Mitchell, St. Louis County Attorney, Leslie E. Beiers, Assistant County Attorney, Duluth, MN (for appellant).
    John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Charlann Elizabeth Winking, Assistant State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN (for respondent).
    Considered and decided by TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, SHUMAKER, Judge, and FOLEY, Judge.
   OPINION

DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge.

Respondent was charged with two armed robberies for the benefit of a gang. Appellant St. Louis County appeals from a trial court order denying certification to •adult court. Because the trial court did not place the proper weight on the seriousness of respondent’s alleged crimes and his prior record of delinquency in balancing the factors for certification set forth in Minn.Stat. § 260.125, subd. 2b (1998), we reverse with directions to certify.

FACTS

The state alleges that on January 22, 1999, 17-year-old respondent S.D.S. entered the Dee Independent Cleaners with two other individuals and robbed it at gunpoint. Respondent allegedly threatened the clerk with a gun. The clerk described the incident as frightening and reported difficulties in concentration, disruption of her studies, and nightmares. The state alleges that on January 30 respondent and two other individuals entered the Whole Foods Co-op and robbed it at gunpoint. The clerk, who was held at gunpoint, stated that she thought she was going to die.

Respondent is a confirmed gang member. The Minnesota Gang Strike Force has several gang profiles on him, he has admitted gang membership, and he has been arrested in the company of known gang members. The record indicates that for the last three to four years respondent has been a member of two violent gangs, the Gangster Disciples and the Dog Pound Gangsters.

Respondent also has a delinquency record. On February 24, 1998, while in the presence of a fellow gang member armed with a knife, respondent punched a victim in the face. On May 8 a fellow gang member assaulted a victim with a fence post while respondent closed the car door, preventing a passenger who was with the victim from getting out. In both incidents respondent was adjudicated delinquent for fifth-degree assault. Respondent was adjudicated delinquent for obstructing legal process in a case involving physical interference with the police who were detaining a fellow gang member. Respondent was also adjudicated for criminal damage to property for vandalizing school property with gang graffiti. At the time of the certification hearing, there was also a pending disorderly conduct case.

From June 9, 1998 until December 1998, respondent was on probation. His probation officer, Dan Bartlett, stated that respondent did not normally check in with him or attend the Violence Prevention Group, which was a condition of his probation. Because Bartlett believed that respondent was living a lifestyle with very little supervision and needed to be in a secure setting, he recommended certification.

As part of his probation, respondent was placed at the Chisholm House. While there, he violated some of the program expectations, challenged authority, minimized the seriousness of his placement, demonstrated negative peer relationships, and showed little remorse for his actions. Despite the fact that respondent finished the program, he was seen as a high risk for further court involvement. In addition, efforts by his high school principal, counselors, and teachers to encourage him to attend school and perform well were unsuccessful.

At respondent’s April 29, 1999 certification hearing, testimony was heard regarding three juvenile residential treatment programs that would accept him. Christopher Corsbie, Admission Coordinator for Glen Mills, interviewed respondent' and found him appropriate for their program. Glen Mills- is a non-secure, confrontation-group setting involving academics, vocational education, and sports. This program has an average length of stay ranging from 12 to 18 months and a recidivism rate of 50 percent after 27 months.

Larry Weight, Director of Clinical and Support Services for the Bar None program, also testified that respondent was appropriate for their, program. At the Bar None program, which is a cognitive behavioral program, consequences for misbehavior include time outs, dropping levels, lock downs, and administrative segregation. The average stay is 11.1 months and the recidivism rate is 38 percent. Bar None provides no vocational programs. Finally, John Handy, Program Director for the Minnesota' State Department of Corrections at Red Wing, stated that a juvenile commitment to the Commissioner of Corrections is automatically accepted to the Red Wing Program. Red Wing, a secure facility, uses the Equip model of reasoning, which is designed to address cognitive distortions, moral reasoning deficiency, and social skills. There is an education and vocational component to the program. The average length of stay at Red Wing is one year, followed by a 90-day extended furlough to the community. The 1995 Legislative Auditor’s report on juvenile recidivism showed a rate of 71 percent after two years and 87 percent after five years. A resident placed as an extended jurisdiction juvenile (EJJ) can remain at Red Wing until the age of 21.

While none of the program witnesses provided a recommendation for or against certification, several expert witnesses testified as to this issue at the certification hearing. Dr. Owen Nelson, a forensic psychologist, examined respondent and concluded that based on his moral and religious values, his conduct disorder was treatable. While Dr. Nelson believed that respondent would benefit from a peer-type program and public safety would be served by keeping him in the juvenile system, he could not guarantee a successful outcome in the juvenile system. Dr. Nelson also indicated that public safety would be protected when respondent was locked up, although he recommended against certification. Dr. Nelson’s recommendation against certification was based on respondent’s amenability to treatment and the availability of treatment in the juvenile system.

Jeff Rasmussen, Hennepin County Public Defender’s Office Dispositional Advisor, believed that respondent was appropriate for EJJ and that public safety would be served by keeping him in the juvenile system. Rasmussen did not view respondent’s prior delinquent record as violent and believed that because he has three and one-half years remaining in the juvenile system, there are appropriate programs to treat him.

Dr. Charles Orsak of the Human Development Center found an increased risk for ongoing and worsening behavior problems based upon the existence of both overt and covert behavior, the overall severity of respondent’s behavior, and the fact that his behavior problems were occurring in multiple settings. Dr. Orsak did not see respondent as a viable candidate for residential programs and recommended a secure setting. He noted that respondent has a notable lack of anxiety, tenuous connection with important institutions such as family, community, and school, and his identity was focused on gang allegiance.

Finally, David Newman, who conducted the certification study and was respondent’s probation officer from October until December 1998, recommended certification. While he testified that respondent complied with his probation, he noted that respondent valued the gang above his family. Newman indicated that respondent did not show a willingness to participate meaningfully in treatment. He did not believe that there was sufficient time remaining before age 21 for the juvenile system to protect public safety and further believed that the Red Wing and Glen Mills Program, where he had placed juveniles in the past, were not appropriate facilities for respondent. Newman based his opinion on the length of the programs, the lack of secure facilities, and respondent’s deeply rooted gang values.

On June 2, 1999, the trial court denied the state’s motion for certification. St. Louis County appealed, and the appeal was heard on October 8, 1999, but was dismissed by this court as moot in an order filed on November 2, upon the representation of counsel that respondent had agreed to waive certification. Upon the state’s submission of documents from the district court proceedings establishing that respondent had withdrawn his declared intent to waive certification, this court reinstated the appeal on January 11, 2000.

ISSUE

Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying certification?

ANALYSIS

The district court has “considerable discretion” in determining whether a juvenile should be certified for adult prosecution. In re Welfare of K.M., 544 N.W.2d 781, 784 (Minn.App.1996). This court will not reverse a juvenile certification order unless the district court’s findings are clearly erroneous so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. In re Welfare of S.J.G., 547 N.W.2d 456, 459 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996).

It is presumed that a proceeding involving an offense committed by a child will be certified if:
(1) the child was 16 or 17 years old at the time of the offense; and
(2) the delinquency petition alleges that the child committed an offense that would result in a presumptive commitment to prison under the sentencing guidelines and applicable statutes,

MinmStat. § 260.125, subd. 2a (1998). Because respondent was 17 years old at the time of the offenses and the offenses with which he is charged carry a presumptive executed sentence, his certification was presumptive.

To rebut the presumption of certification, a respondent must establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that retaining the proceeding in the juvenile court, serves public safety. Id. In determining whether public safety is served, the district court must consider the following statutory factors:

(1) the seriousness of the alleged offense in terms of community protection, including the existence of any aggravating factors recognized by the sentencing guidelines, the use of a firearm, and the impact on any victim;
(2) the culpability of the child in committing the alleged offense, including the level of the child’s participation in planning and carrying out the offense and the existence of any mitigating factors recognized by the sentencing guidelines;
(3) the child’s prior record of delinquency;
(4) the child’s programming history, including the child’s past willingness to participate meaningfully in available programming;
(5)’ the adequacy of the punishment or programming available in the juvenile justice system; and
(6) the dispositional options available for the child.

Minn.Stat. § 260.125, subd. 2b (1998).' In 'considering these factors, greater weight must be given to the seriousness of the alleged offense and the prior record of delinquency than to the other factors. Minn.Stat. § 260.125, subd. 2b; State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 489 (Minn.1998).

The parties do not dispute that respondent falls within the presumption of certification. However, the state argues that the trial court improperly balanced the six statutory factors by not placing appropriate weight on the seriousness of respondent’s-alleged offenses and prior record of delinquency. We agree.

Seriousness of Offense

We repeat — Minnesota law requires that greater weight be given to the seriousness of the alleged offense factor. Minn.Stat. § '260.125, subd. 2b; Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d at 489. Here, the trial court understated and failed to weigh properly facts that demonstrated the seriousness of respondent’s alleged offenses.

The district court stated, that while “the offenses are serious,” the prison term was relatively short, and “the victims were frightened, while not physically harmed.” However, the record demonstrates that the alleged offenses were much more serious than the trial court concluded. Respondent allegedly committed two gang-related armed robberies within a nine-day span. The clerks were held at gunpoint, and one of the clerks described not only a fear of dying, but also ongoing struggles with day-to-day activities, nightmares, nervousness, and difficulty concentrating. The other clerk reported disruption in her studies and nightmares. While the victims might not have suffered physical injuries, the record establishes that each was terrorized.

Because the trial court did not place the proper weight on the seriousness of the alleged offenses, it abused its discretion in balancing the statutory factors.

Culpability of the Child

The degree of respondent’s alleged culpability is not in dispute. The district court noted that “the juvenile’s culpability is given, as he was one of the primary participants, and brandished the weapon.”

Prior Record of Delinquency

The state also argues that the district court did not apply the proper weight to respondent’s delinquency record. We agree. Minnesota law requires that greater weight also be given to the juvenile’s prior delinquency record. Minn.Stat. § 260.125, subd. 2b; Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d at 489. The trial court found that respondent’s prior record of delinquency was “minimal,” noting that it contains only misdemeanors. However, respondent committed four misdemeanors, all gang related. The assault on February 24, 1998, took place in the presence of a known gang member who was armed with a knife. There, respondent punched the victim in the face, for which he was adjudicated delinquent for fifth-degree assault. During the May 8, 1998 assault, respondent was also accompanied by a known gang member, who assaulted the victim with a fence post while respondent held the door of the car, preventing the passenger from getting out. Respondent was also adjudicated delinquent for obstructing legal process in a case involving physical interference with the police, who were detaining a fellow gang member. Finally, respondent was adjudicated delinquent for criminal damage to property when he sprayed gang graffiti on the outer surface of a high school, causing thousands of dollars in damage. In addition, the fact that respondent’s prior record of delinquency included only four misdemeanor convictions does not lessen its weight. This court has affirmed the trial court’s decision to certify a juvenile when his prior juvenile history included one gang-related misdemeanor. See KM., 544 N.W.2d at 785 (holding gang-related nature of misdemeanor applicable to weighing factors). Here, where respondent has four gang-related misdemeanors on his record, his prior delinquency record weighs in favor of certification.

Because respondent had been convicted of repeated gang-related misdemeanors, his prior delinquency record was far from “minimal.” By not recognizing the gang-related nature of all his prior offenses, the trial court understated his prior delinquency record, a factor that the law clearly requires be given greater weight. Because the trial court failed to do this, we conclude that it abused its discretion in balancing the factors and denying certification.

Child’s Programming History

The trial court also determined that the programming history was minimal, with very little treatment involved. However, the record indicates that respondent was involved in mediation, out-of-home placement, supervised probation, and compulsory attendance at a violence prevention group. There was testimony at trial that the school efforts to help respondent were unsuccessful. In addition, the court accepted a recommendation letter written by Peter J. Kennelly, a Treatment Team Manager at Chisholm House, which states that while at Chisholm House, S.D.S.

[h]ad a carefree demeanor and did not hesitate to violate many basic program expectations. When held accountable for his behavior, [he] verbally challenged authority and acted as if he was “above” the rules. * * * As his sentence progressed [S.D.S.] began to conform and his acting out became less blatant. Although he was making “good time” on a more consistent basis, [S.D.S.’s] reaction when held accountable remained consistent through his sentence. He was defensive to both staff and his peer group. [He] displayed all of the abilities to succeed in the program. Unfortunately, he chose to minimize the seriousness of this placement and he put forth minimal effort. His completion of the program in twenty-four days then, can be considered satisfactory at best by our standards.

The record further indicates that “[h]e showed little remorse for his crimes and was unwilling to accept advice on his hurtful values and behaviors.”

While respondent’s most recent probation officer testified that he complied with his probation, a prior probation officer testified that respondent did not formally check in with him. In addition, respondent did not attend the Violence Prevention Group because it conflicted with his work schedule, even though it was a condition of his probation. The district court’s order did not address these issues and concluded that respondent’s programming history was “minimal.” Because the record clearly shows that respondent has an extensive programming history, we conclude that the district court’s determination that the history was “minimal” was clearly erroneous.

Adequacy of Punishment or Programming Available

The experts disputed whether respondent would be adequately treated in the juvenile system. Five expert witnesses testified regarding whether respondent should be certified. Dr. Nelson believed that respondent should be kept within the juvenile system because his religious beliefs suggested his conduct disorder was treatable. Jeff Rasmussen believed that there were programs that would be appropriate for respondent and that there was sufficient time, three and one-half years, remaining in the juvenile system to treat him. In contrast; Dr. Or-sak, and probation officers Dan Bartlett and David Newman, .recommended that respondent be certified. Dr. Orsak found an increased risk for ongoing behavior and did not believe that respondent was amenable to treatment. Bartlett based his determination in favor of certification on the severity of the charges and respondent’s past history. Newman believed that respondent had insufficient time remaining in the juvenile system to protect public safety. Ordinarily, where expert testimony conflicts, this court will defer to the trial court’s credibility determination. K.M., 544 N.W.2d at 785 (citing In re Welfare of M.D.O., 462 N.W.2d 370, 374-75 (Minn.1990)). However, in this case the evidence dictates a different result when the factors are properly weighed.- The long-established rule in Minnesota provides that “[flmdings which are controlled .or influenced by errors of law are not final on appeal and may be set aside.” Honn v. Coin & Stamp Gallery, Inc., 407 N.W.2d 419, 422 (Minn.App.1987), review denied (Minn. Aug. 12,1987).

Dispositional Options

-Here, there is no dispute that there were disposition options for respondent, given that three different programs had interviewed and were willing to accept him. However, these options are outweighed by the seriousness of respondent’s alleged offenses and his prior delinquency record, which must be given greater weight and which, when considered in light of the factors, favor certification.

We cannot emphasize too strongly that the trial court must place greater weight on the severity of the alleged crime and the prior delinquency record of the juvenile in deciding whether to certify. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d at 489.

DECISION

The trial, court abused its discretion, placing extra emphasis on respondent’s programming history and disposi-tional options and ignoring facts that clearly indicated that respondent’s alleged •offenses were serious and his prior delinquency record extensive. The greater weight that must be placed on these two factors not only outweighs all the other factors, but-also favors certification.

Reversed.

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

      . Recodified as Minn.Stat. § 260B.125, subd. 3, as of August 1, 1999. See 1999 Minn. Laws ch. 139, art. 2, § 11 (enacting § 260B.125), art. 4, § 3 (repealing § 260.125); Minn.Stat. § 645.02 (1998) (laws passed by legislature take effect Aug. 1 of that year unless otherwise specified in law).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: DORIS OHLSEN HUSPENI, Judge.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In the Matter of the WELFARE OF G.S.P.
    No. C7-99-1028.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    April 25, 2000.

      John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Charlann E. Winking, Assistant Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant G.S.P.
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, and John J. Muhar, Itasca County Attorney, Michael J. Haig, Assistant County Attorney, Grand Rapids, for respondent State of Minnesota.
    Considered and decided by PETERSON, Presiding Judge, G. BARRY ANDERSON, Judge, and HUSPENI, Judge.

       Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Constar!. VI, § 10.

   OPINION

DORIS OHLSEN HUSPENI, Judge.

Appellant, a juvenile, alleges that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress statements made by appellant and in determining that the state had proven appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that appellant’s - statements were inadmissible because they were taken in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, and we reverse.

FACTS

On the second day of the school year in September 1998,12-year-old G.S.P., a seventh grader at North Middle School in Grand Rapids, apparently forgot his backpack in the locker room after a football game. That evening, a school custodian found the backpack while cleaning' the boys’ locker room. Looking for identification, the custodian opened" the bag and discovered a BB gun. The custodian took the bag with the gun to the assistant principal’s office and left a note on the bag.

The next morning, James Wheeler, the assistant principal, found the bag on his chair with the note attached. Wheeler called Grand Rapids police officer Brian Johnson, explaining that a custodian found a backpack with a weapon in it. Wheeler asked Johnson to get to school as soon as possible. Officer Johnson, a licensed officer of 17 years, was working in his third year as a school liaison officer assigned to the Grand Rapids schools.

Officer Johnson, in uniform, arrived at Wheeler’s office. The two examined the backpack and weapon. Wbeeler, in looking through the backpack, found items that identified the owner as G.S.P. Wheeler asked Johnson to accompany him to G.S.P.’s classroom. G.S.P. was taken out of class and accompanied Officer Johnson and Wbeeler back to Wheeler’s office. G.S.P. was not told why he was called out of class and felt he had no choice but to accompany them. G.S.P. asked what it was about and Wheeler said he would explain it in the office.

G.S.P. was interviewed in Wbeeler’s office in the presence of Wbeeler, Officer Johnson, a school counselor, and a teacher. According to Wheeler, the interview lasted for “[m]aybe up to an hour.” G.S.P. felt nervous because he did not know what was wrong. Wheeler told him that he had no choice but to answer the questions. Wbeeler did not tell G.S.P. that he could talk to his parents, that he had a right to an attorney, or that he was free to leave. Officer Johnson did not communicate anything about whether G.S.P. was under arrest or in custody. The only thing Johnson communicated was that he was going to have a tape recorder on.

The taped interview began with Wbeeler telling G.S.P. that he was going to ask a couple of questions and then turn it over to Officer Johnson. Wbeeler noted that the custodian found the backpack in the boys’ locker room where G.S.P. had left it. Officer Johnson asked G.S.P. why he left his backpack behind, to which G.S.P. responded that he just forgot it. Wbeeler noted that there was a pair of pants with some money in the back pocket and inquired, “Is there something else in here that probably shouldn’t be in here?” G.S.P. responded, “Not that I know of.” Wheeler inquired twice more whether there was anything else that was inappropriate in the bag, to which G.S.P. twice responded, “No.”

At this point, Wbeeler revealed the gun and asked G.S.P. what kind it was. G.S.P. responded that he forgot all about it; he did not know it was in there. G.S.P. appeared very upset and testified that he felt kind of scared when Wheeler pulled the gun out of the backpack. Responding to questions, G.S.P told Wbeeler how to load the BB gun. The gun was not loaded and had been in the backpack for about a week since G.S.P. had taken it over to a friend’s house. G.S.P. had not shown the gun to anybody at school.

Wheeler noted that the student handbook policy calls for expulsion for bringing a pistol to school. Wbeeler explained that G.S.P. would have to deal with some issues with school, with law enforcement, and with his family; he had made a mistake and things were not going to be very good but would eventually get better. The school counselor noted that G.S.P. would be suspended for 10 days regardless and that the counselor would have to get in touch with G.S.P.’s parents. A sobbing G.S.P. reiterated that he did not even know the gun was there and that there were no BBs in the backpack. Wbeeler explained that those were the rules and that it was a safety issue. The school counselor noted that G.S.P. had nothing in his discipline file. Wheeler called G.S.P.’s father and told G.S.P. his father would be there in half an hour.

At that point, Officer Johnson explained that he had to follow up on some points. Officer Johnson stated:

I have the statute book out here in front of me and it’s Crimes Against the Public Safety and Health that has to do with dangerous weapons and dangerous weapons at school. Stating here that it’s a dangerous weapon - Whoever uses or brandishes a replica BB gun on school property; whoever possesses, stores or keeps a replica of a firearm or BB gun on school property * * ⅜ so you’re gonna be charged with that — do you understand this? Ok. I’ll talk to your folks about this, too. What I do is I make a report of what has happened and turn that over to the County Attorney and he decides what or if any charges will be pressed and what happens is you get a notice in the mail and your parents — if there are charges — and then they’ll be a court date set. (inaudible) make a recommendation. I always do that in my reports. [G.S.P.] — people who are truthful and honest and sincere and remorseful about things — I put that in my report. I can tell you are that way today.
I would like to ask you some questions about this gun. You don’t have to answer them if you don’t want to. ’ That’s' up to you — or you can wait till your dad gets here or whatever you feel more comfortable — or if you wanna talk now that’s fine, too. You mind if I ask you questions? You’ve been pretty honest about the counselor and principal here. This (inaudible) BB gun — is that yours or your parents?

In response to Officer Johnson’s questions, G.S.P. explained that the gun was his, it had been given to him as a birthday present when he was nine or ten, and that he used it for pop cans and “stuff.” He did not have any ammunition, he used the gun when he visited his friend about a week or week and a half earlier, and had transported it in his backpack. He did not take the gun out of his backpack when he packed his school things because he had forgotten all about it. He was a football player, he had not had any fights or disagreements lately, had not been threatened, and had no intention to use the gun. He was not in a gang, did not fear gangs, and did not know any kids in gangs. A sobbing G.S.P. agreed that he had no intention of using the gun other than “plin-kin’ away” at his friend’s house or his house. The school counselor noted that “[i]t seems like everything adds up that he forgot about it.” Officer Johnson stated that they would end the statement there.

When G.S.P.’s father arrived at school, he was told about the gun and asked to sign a waiver. He was told that if he signed the waiver G.S.P. would be expelled until February 1st and that if he did not sign the waiver the matter would have to go before the school board and G.S.P. would probably be expelled for the entire year. - Taking into consideration his son’s welfare, the father signed the waiver.

Subsequently, a juvenile delinquency petition was brought, charging G.S.P. with a gross misdemeanor for possession of a BB gun on school property in violation of Minn.Stat. '§ 609.66, subd. ld(b) (1998). G.S.P. denied the charge and requested an omnibus hearing and trial. The district court held ■ a combined omnibus hearing and trial. After five witnesses provided testimony, the court denied G.S.P.’s motion to suppress, concluding that G.S.P. was not in custody when interrogated and that his statements were voluntary because there was no coercive action. The trial court found G.S.P. delinquent, concluding the statute did not require the state to prove knowing possession and that the state had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that G.S.P. “did possess, keep or store a bb gun” on school property in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.66, subd. ld(b). The court stayed the delinquency adjudication and disposition for’ six months pending good behavior.

G.S.P. appealed. The state moved to dismiss thé appeal, arguing that the trial court’s order was non-appealable and that the appeal was moot. This court denied the motion to dismiss as moot “at this' time” (the six-month continuance of the adjudication had not expired at the time of this court’s order and, therefore, “appellant may still suffer the adverse consequences of an adjudication of delinquency”). The motion to dismiss as non-appealable was deferred to the panel considering the appeal on its merits.

ISSUES

1. Is there a justiciable controversy?

2. Was G.S.P. subject to custodial interrogation?

ANALYSIS

I.

The state argues that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of a case or controversy because there was no final order. A juvenile has a right of appeal from adverse final orders. Minn. R. Juv. P. 21.03, subd. 1. In this case, the trial court stayed adjudication for delinquency and disposition for six months to be dismissed providing good behavior in the interim. The state contends that, absent entry of adjudication, there is no appeal-able, final, adverse order. The juvenile rules, however, specifically define final orders to include “continuance without adjudication and disposition in delinquency proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 260.185, subd. 1(a) or (b).” Minn. R. Juv. P. 21.03, subd. 1(A)(2). Accordingly, the order here is appealable under the juvenile rules.

The state also argues that the appeal should be dismissed because G.S.P. has not suffered any injury.

[w]hen, pending appeal, an event occurs that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief impossible, the appeal should be dismissed as moot.

State v. Brown, 597 N.W.2d 299, 305 (Minn.App.1999) (quoting In re Application of Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Minn.1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 14, 1999)). In this case, over six months have passed since the May 1999 order. However, the file before this court was transmitted prior to the expiration of the six-month period and nothing in the record readily confirms that G.S.P. has in fact maintained good behavior. Further, the trial court found the charged offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is “undeniably the fact that probation officers and other court services personnel would see” the minor’s “juvenile records in the future” should the minor be convicted of a future crime. In re Welfare of L.B., Jr., 404 N.W.2d 341, 344 (Minn.App.1987). Additionally, because the circumstances present in this case are capable of repetition, yet evading review, we are reluctant to consider the matter moot. Id. Accordingly, we shall review the merits of the appeal.

II.

G.S.P. argues that the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to suppress admissions made by G.S.P. while being questioned in Wheeler’s office because the interrogation was a custodial one and conducted without a Miranda warning. When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred ip suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.” State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn.1999).

To safeguard an uncounseled individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, suspects subject to custodial interrogation must be given the Miranda warning — they have the right to remain silent, anything they say may be used against them in court, and they are entitled to the presence of an attorney. Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 107, 116 S.Ct. 457, 462, 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). “Juveniles as well as adults are entitled to be apprised of their constitutional rights according to the dictates of Miranda.” State v. Loyd, 297 Minn. 442, 445, 212 N.W.2d 671, 674 (1973) (citing In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428,18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967)).

“Custodial interrogation is “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Thompson, 516 U.S. at 107, 116 S.Ct. at 463 (citing Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612). “The warning required by Miranda must be given by all those who use the power of the state to elicit an incriminating response from a suspect, regardless whether they are law enforcement personnel.” State v. Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d 305, 310 (Minn.1999).

When applying the custodial interrogation standard, courts first determine whether the defendant was “in custody” by considering the surrounding circumstances, and then turn to the nature of the interrogation itself to determine whether the questioning was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. See id. at 309; State v. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d 719, 724 (Minn.1998). Determining whether the defendant was “in custody” involves considering all of the circumstances, including the officer’s and the defendant’s behavior throughout the interrogation. See State v. Wiernasz, 584 N.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Minn.1998); State v. Miller, 573 N.W.2d 661, 670-71 (Minn.1998).

No “bright line rule” exists in determining whether a defendant was in custody. Wiemasz, 584 N.W.2d at 2. Determining whether a person was in custody for Miranda purposes is a mixed question of law and fact involving a two-part analysis:

[F]irst, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. Once the scene is set and the players’ lines and actions are reconstructed, the court must apply an objective test to resolve “the ultimate inquiry”: “[was] there a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal arrest.”

Thompson, 516 U.S. at 112, 116 S.Ct. at 465. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s factual findings of circumstances under the clearly erroneous standard, but independently reviews the trial court’s determination regarding custody. Wiernasz, 584 N.W.2d at 3; Miller, 573 N.W.2d at 670.

The trial court did not make factual findings in this case. But neither are the facts in dispute. Then 12-year-old G.S.P. was removed from his seventh-grade class and accompanied by Wheeler and Officer Johnson to Wheeler’s office. When G.S.P. asked what it was about, Wheeler said he would explain it in the office. Once in the office, Officer Johnson told G.S.P. that the tape recorder would be on. At the outset of the recording, Wheeler explained that he would ask a couple of questions and then turn it over to Officer Johnson. G.S.P. was told that he had no choice but to answer the questions. G.S.P. had never before been to the principal’s or assistant principal’s office for discipline, nor had he been in trouble with the law or questioned by the police.

In applying the objective test, this court must ask whether a reasonable person in G.S.P.’s situation would have believed that he was in custody. Miller, 573 N.W.2d at 670. Proper constitutional analysis of custodial interrogation should focus primarily on the perspective of the suspect, rather than the subjective intent of the police. Edrozo, 578 N.W.2d at 725. The test is not whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were not free to leave, but whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe they were in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest. State v. Champion, 533 N.W.2d 40, 43 (Minn.1995).

Application of the objective test to all of the surrounding circumstances in this case convinces us that from the perspective of G.S.P. a reasonable person would believe he was in custody.

Importantly, Officer Johnson did not tell G.S.P. that he was not under arrest or that he was free to leave. See Miller, 573 N.W.2d at 670 (important to custody analysis that suspect told by police he was not under arrest); State v. Budke, 372 N.W.2d 799, 801 (Minn.App.1985) (18-year-old told prior to police questioning that he could leave principal’s office at any time). Indeed, Wheeler told G.S.P. that he had no choice but to answer their questions.

“Custodial arrest” involves a “coercive influence” that conveys to the suspect “a message that he has no choice but to submit to the officers’ will and to confess.” Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d at 308 (quoting Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 433, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1145, 79 L.Ed.2d 409 (1984)). In Murphy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that questioning by a probation officer was not custodial in nature because of the absence of psychological intimidation due to the defendant’s familiarity with probation meetings. See Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d at 309 (discussing Murphy in some detail). In this case, the record indicates that G.S.P. was in an unfamiliar environment, as he had never been in trouble before and had never been called to the office of the principal or assistant principal. Unlike Murphy, the record here is not devoid of psychological intimidation raising Fifth Amendment concerns.

The location of the interview and the questioners’ titles are not determinative considerations. The fact that the questioning here occurred in school does not lessen the importance of Fifth Amendment safeguards. See Wiemasz, 584 N.W.2d at 3 (noting that whether interrogation occurs at police station or at home is not determinative). Further, the presence of a police officer alone does not transform a discussion into a custodial interrogation. Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d at 310. But where, as here, a uniformed officer summons a juvenile from the classroom to the office and actively participates in the questioning, the circumstances suggest the coercive influence associated with a formal arrest. See id. at 308-09; Wier-nasz, 584 N.W.2d at 3-4 (discussing necessity of coercive aspect).

Further, Officer Johnson told G.S.P. that the interview would be tape recorded. Under Minnesota law, custodial interrogations must be electronically recorded where feasible. State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587, 592 (Minn.1994). The underlying rationale for the decision in Scales was to prevent factual disputes about the existence and context of Miranda warnings and any ensuing waiver of rights. Miller, 573 N.W.2d at 674. The fact that Officer Johnson told G.S.P. at the outset that the interview would be recorded is strongly suggestive of a custodial interrogation.

An examination of the nature of the interrogation itself reinforces the conclusion that G.S.P. was subject to custodial interrogation. The standard is whether the questioning, express or implied, is “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.” Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d at 309 (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 1689-90, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980)). Here, Wheeler repeatedly asked G.S.P. whether he had something “inappropriate in his backpack.” After G.S.P. responded in the negative, Wheeler revealed the gun and told G.S.P he would have to deal with law enforcement. Officer Johnson quoted from a criminal statute and explained the process by which G.S.P. would likely be charged. Officer Johnson questioned G.S.P.’s intentions and involvement with gangs. The record reveals that G.S.P. was questioned for potential criminal conduct, not just for misbehavior in school. The questions were reasonably likely to elicit a criminally incriminating response.

The state notes that G.S.P.’s admissions first occurred during questioning from Wheeler and argues that even if G.S.P. was “in custody,” he was not entitled to a Miranda warning with regard to Wheeler’s questioning. We disagree. Rather than making two discrete inquiries, Wheeler and Officer Johnson were working together. At the outset, Officer Johnson told G.S.P. that he would be recording the interrogation, and Wheeler told G.S.P. he had a couple questions and then would turn it over to Officer Johnson. Further, near the beginning of the interrogation, Officer Johnson inquired, “How come you left it behind?” Rather than two discreet interviews, the record suggests one concerted effort. Regardless, a Miranda warning must be given by all that use the power of the state to elicit criminally incriminating responses. Tibiatowski, 590 N.W.2d at 310.

Our conclusion that a Miranda warning was required in this ease is based on the specific facts presented here and is intended to have narrow application. This case is not about whether a student must be given a Miranda warning when summoned to the office of a school principal or assistant principal to be questioned about discipline problems. The district court undoubtedly was correct in noting that school officials have the right and the authority to make reasonable inquiry of a student concerning conduct that has taken place on school premises. Cf. Boynton v. Casey, 543 F.Supp. 995 (D.Maine 1982) (student challenging expulsion had no right to Miranda warning because interrogation was by school officials in furtherance of disciplinary duties). Further, there is nothing improper about law enforcement participating in school disciplinary affairs. But where a peace officer interrogates a student in custody in a manner likely to elicit criminally incriminating responses, the student must be afforded Fifth Amendment protection. Cf. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 55, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 1458, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (suggesting that juveniles may have a greater need for Fifth Amendment protection than adults).

Because the state has not indicated the presence of any available fallback prosecu-torial position without G.S.P.’s admissions, we see no possibility of reversal and remand for a new hearing. Reversal is the only appropriate result.

Because we conclude that G.S.P. was subject to a custodial interrogation requiring a Miranda warning, we need not reach other arguments advanced concerning the voluntariness of the statement and the necessary level of criminal intent.

DECISION

Because our independent review of the surrounding circumstances leads to the conclusion that G.S.P. was subject to custodial interrogation requiring á Miranda warning, we reverse the district court’s decision. The state’s motion to dismiss is denied.

Reversed; motion denied.

      . Our conclusion concerning the appealability issue is consistent with that recently reached in In re Welfare of M.R.C., No. CX-99-536, 1999 WL 1261720 (Minn.App. Dec.28, 1999).


author: CRIPPEN, Judge.

text:
    Scott Allen NORDVICK, James Allen Uzarek, June Marie Byrne, petitioners, Respondents, v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellant.
    Nos. C5-99-1674, C7-99-1675, C0-99-1677.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    April 25, 2000.

      Peter C. Mayrand, St. Paul, for respondent Nordviek.
    James Allen Uzarek, Burnsville, pro se respondent.
    Dean S. Grau, Minneapolis, for respondent Byrne.
    Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Jeffrey F. Lebowski, Michael R. Pahl, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, for appellant.
    Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, Presiding Judge, CRIPPEN, Judge, and SHUMAKER, Judge.

      . The trial courts engaged in a further statement of criminal characteristics of implied consent proceedings, but it is evident that the criminalization rationale of each court is inextricably tied to its concern regarding the enhancement provisions.

   OPINION

CRIPPEN, Judge.

This is a consolidated appeal of three cases in which several trial courts upheld constitutional challenges to Minn.Stat. 169.123 (1998), the implied consent statute. The Commissioner of Public Safety disputes that respondents have standing to raise these challenges. Because respondents have no standing, we reverse the trial court decisions rescinding the revocation of their drivers licenses. We remand one of the appeals so that the trial court can rule on the merits of the drivers petition for judicial review of his license revocation.

FACTS

■ A police officer arrested respondent Scott Nordviek for driving while under the influence in January 1999. Nordviek took and failed the implied consent' test, and the Commissioner of Public Safety revoked his drivers license. Nordviek petitioned for judicial review, contending that the officer violated his right to counsel and that the implied consent law was unconstitutional. The trial court found that Nordviek had waived his right to' counsel but ruled that the implied consent law was. unconstitutional on several grounds. It determined that because the law compels the petitioner to submit a testimonial statement in the implied consent petition, the drivers Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated; that the provision mandating limited discovery violated the drivers due process rights; and that the civil-law treatment of implied consent court proceedings violated due process because the revocation may be- used to enhance future DWI crimes.

Respondent James Uzarek was arrested for driving while under the influence in November 1998, and he took and failed an implied consent test. The commissioner revoked his drivers license and respondent petitioned for judicial review, challenging the sufficiency of probable cause for a testing demand, whether his right to an independent test had been vindicated, and the constitutionality of the implied consent law. The trial court ruled, as in Nordvicks challenge, that the requirement that drivers must affirmatively plead facts violates their right to be free from compelled self-incrimination. The court also held that the provision for mandated limited discovery violated the separation of powers doctrine and the drivers due process rights. The trial court did not reach the issue of whether the implied consent law has become criminal in nature or the merits of Uzareks contentions on probable cause and his independent testing right.

Respondent June Byrne was arrested for driving while under the influence in December 1998. She failed the implied consent test and the commissioner revoked her drivers license. She petitioned for judicial review, challenging the reliability of the test and the constitutionality of the implied consent law. The trial court found that the test results were accurate but ruled that the implied consent law was unconstitutional on the same three grounds as stated in Nordvicks challenge.

ISSUE

Do respondents have standing to raise the constitutional issues?

ANALYSIS

1. Standard of Review

The issue of whether a party has standing to bring an action is a question of law. Joel v. Wellman, 551 N.W.2d 729, 730 (Minn.App.1996), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 1996). Legal questions are reviewed de novo on appeal. Frostr-Benco Elec. Assn v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Commn, 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn.1984).

Drivers may not invoke the jurisdiction of the court to challenge the constitutionality of implied consent laws unless they can show they have standing. McDonnell v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848, 855 n. 16 (Minn.1991). That is, they must demonstrate that they will suffer a direct and personal harm resulting from the alleged denial of [their] constitutional rights. City of Minneapolis v. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d 386, 393 (Minn. 1980).

2. Mandatory statement

The first issue is whether the respondents had standing to challenge the constitutionality of the requirement in the implied consent law that a petition for judicial review of a revocation, which is to specify the grounds upon which the petitioner seeks rescission of the order of revocation, must also state the facts underlying each claim asserted. Minn.Stat. 169.123, subd. 5e(b)(3) (1998). The quoted portion was removed from the statute effective May 7, 1999. 1999 Minn. Laws ch. 124, 1, 2. At the time of the respondents DWIs, the disputed provision was in effect. The trial courts held that this provision violated respondents Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

No person may be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in any criminal matter. U.S. Const, amend. Y; Minn. Const, art. I, 7. A driver in a civil implied consent proceeding may assert the privilege against self-incrimination if it can be reasonably apprehend[ed] that the statements could be used against them in a criminal prosecution. Heddan v. Dirkswager, 336 N.W.2d 54, 63 (Minn.1983) (citation omitted); see Parker v. Hennepin County Dist. Court, 285 N.W.2d 81, 83 (Minn.1979) (noting right to plead Fifth Amendment is not absolute in civil cases). Respondents did not state any inculpatory facts in their petitions and therefore cannot demonstrate that the statements could be used against them in future criminal prosecutions. They failed as well to show that the demand for a statement of facts posed to them the threat of self-incrimination. Because they have not shown harm, they have no standing to raise a Fifth Amendment challenge. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d at 393.

3.Limited discovery

The trial courts determined that the mandatory limited-discovery provision in the implied consent law violated due process. The court in Uzareks case also determined it violated the separation of powers provision. The challenged provision mandates pretrial discovery under the rules but limits the mandate to the notice of revocation, the test record, the peace officers certificate of the arresting officer, and the names of potential witnesses and the basis of their testimony. Minn.Stat. 169.123, subd. 5c(d) (1998). In 1999, the legislature amended the provision so that it now permits other discovery upon order of the court. 1999 Minn. Laws ch. 124, 1. The more-restrictive 1998 version is applicable to ah of the respondents here.

We must again address the question of whether the respondents showed a direct and personal harm, demonstrating that they had standing. Wurtele, 291 N.W.2d at 893. The commissioner asserts he gave respondents counsel access to the entire file held by the commissioner for prehearing discovery, and respondents do not dispute this. Further, the commissioner advised them as to the witnesses the commissioner intended to call and informed them that if they wanted other information not in the commissioners possession, they could contact their client, the, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the arresting officer, or the city attorneys office. There is no evidence in the record that respondents found that access to any relevant disclosure was denied, or attempted to receive additional discovery. Further, they do not claim they were unable to proceed with the implied consent hearing due to the mandatory limited discovery provisions. Accordingly, respondents have not shown they were harmed by the limitations and they have no standing to assert the constitutional challenges.

4. Due process

In Nordvicks and Byrnes proceedings, the trial courts determined that because an implied consent revocation could lead to enhanced criminal penalties for subsequent DWI offenses, the civil characteristics of the implied consent proceedings were inadequate to protect due process rights of the drivers. See Minn.Stat. 169.121, subds. 3(c)(2) (providing for gross misdemeanor DWI offense if offender has prior license revocation within past five years), 3(d) (1998) (providing for enhanced gross misdemeanor for particular DWI offenses if offender has certain prior license revocation).

Defendants may challenge an enhancement provision in a criminal statute when the provision is applied against them. Davis v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 509 N.W.2d 380, 391 (Minn.App.1993), aff'd, 517 N.W.2d 901 (Minn.1994). Until that time, they cannot show any direct and personal harm resulting from the criminal enhancement provision, and their challenge is premature. Id. at 392. Consequently, drivers in the implied consent proceedings do not have standing to challenge the effect of the revocation on a possible future DWI charge.

5. Remand

Finally, respondent Uzarek sought a remand in the event the trial courts ruling on the constitutionality of the implied consent statute was reversed. We remand for a determination of the merits of his petition.

DECISION

Respondents lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the implied consent law because they have not shown they suffered harm from the alleged constitutional violations. We remand respondent Uzareks appeal for a decision on the merits of his petition for judicial review of his license revocation.

Reversed and remanded.


author: KLAPHAKE, Judge. SHUMAKER, Judge

text:
    STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Shilow NMN COOK, Respondent.
    No. C7-99-1790.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    April 25, 2000.

      Mike Hatch, Attorney General, St. Paul, Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, Linda M. Freyer, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, for appellant.
    A. Demetrius Clemons, Minneapolis, for respondent.
    Considered and decided by KLAPHAKE, Presiding Judge, CRIPPEN, Judge, and SHUMAKER, Judge.
   OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge.

The State of Minnesota appeals from an order suppressing evidence seized after police conducted a warrantless arrest of respondent Shilow Cook. The district court granted Cook’s motion to suppress and concluded that police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook based solely on information received from a confidential reliable informant (CRI). Cook has not filed a brief in response to the state’s appeal, and this matter is proceeding pursuant to Minn. R. Cív.App. P. 142.03 (if respondent fails to file brief, case shall be determined on merits).

Because the CRI’s information lacked sufficient detail and range to establish the CRI’s basis of knowledge, we affirm the district court’s decision that police did not have probable cause to arrest Cook without a warrant.

FACTS

The facts of this case are largely undisputed. The parties stipulated to the facts contained in the complaint and police reports, and the testimony presented at the suppression hearing was consistent with the facts contained in these documents.

At the hearing on Cook’s motion to suppress, Minneapolis Police Officer Michael Doran testified that on the morning of June 22, 1999, he received a telephone call from a CRI. Doran had worked with this particular CRI in the past and had met him in person. The CRI had previously provided Doran and other officers known to Doran with information that had led to at least 12 other convictions. The CRI was paid for his information. To Doran’s knowledge, the CRI had never given any false information.

In the two weeks prior to June 22, the CRI told Doran that a man named Shilow Cook was dealing crack cocaine in the Minneapolis area. In the June 22 phone call, the CRI told Doran that Cook was selling crack cocaine at the YMCA located at 34th and Blaisdell in Minneapolis and that he had the crack cocaine in the waistband of his pants. The CRI further described Cook as a black male in his mid-40’s, 5’6” tall, and weighing approximately 150 pounds. The CRI told Doran that Cook was wearing a red shirt, black pants, and a baseball cap. Finally, the CRI stated that Cook was driving a blue Lincoln with Minnesota license plate number 134PXH.

Within one hour, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Doran and other officers arrived at the YMCA. They saw a blue Lincoln with Minnesota license plate 134PXH parked in the lot. At approximately noon, the officers saw a man leave the YMCA. The man matched Cook’s description as given by the CRI. The officers observed the man get into the driver’s side of the blue Lincoln.

The officers approached the vehicle and placed the man under arrest. During a search, the officers found 7.2 grams of crack cocaine in the waistband of the man’s pants and $1,186 in cash in his pockets. Cook was charged with a controlled substance crime in the second degree in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.022, subd. 2(1) (1998) (“unlawfully possesses one or more mixtures of a total weight of six grams or more containing cocaine”).

At the suppression hearing, Doran claimed that he did not obtain a search warrant prior to arresting Cook because there was insufficient time. Doran acknowledged that the CRI never indicated that he saw Cook selling drugs. Nor is there any evidence that the CRI ever claimed he had personally purchased drugs from Cook.

ISSUE

Did the district court err in concluding that police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook and in suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to Cook’s warrantless arrest?

ANALYSIS

To prevail on appeal from a pretrial suppression order, the state must establish that the district court’s ruling constitutes clear error and that the ruling will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant. State v. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412, 416 (Minn.1998). The district court’s ruling in this case undeniably has a critical impact because suppression of the evidence renders prosecution of Cook impossible. In addition, because the facts of this case are largely undisputed, the district court’s ruling presents a question of law, which this court may independently review. State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn.1992).

Police may. arrest a felony suspect without a warrant in any public place provided they have probable cause. State v. Walker, 584 N.W.2d 763, 766 (Minn.1998). If an arrest is valid, police may conduct a warrantless search of the suspect as an incident to the arrest without additional justification. Id

In a close case, the lack of a warrant may weigh against a finding of probable cause. Id. at 769. Police are encouraged to obtain a warrant issued by a detached judge who can independently evaluate the facts to determine .if they support a probable cause finding. Id. When determining the legality of a war-rantless arrest, we look to the information that police took into consideration when making the arrest, not what they uncovered thereafter. Id The information must allow an independent determination of probable cause and not a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. State v. Doyle, 336 N.W.2d 247, 249-50 n. 1 (Minn. 1983).

Probable cause for arrest exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspieioii that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime. Each ease must be determined on its own facts and circumstances, and the facts must justify more than mere suspicion but less than a conviction. ••

State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170, 173-74 (Minn.1978); see also State v. Riley, 568 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Minn.1997) (“[T]he police must show that they ‘reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.’ ”). The lawfulness of an arrest is determined by an objective standard that takes into account the totality of the circumstances. State v. Perkins, 582 N.W.2d 876, 878 (Minn.1998); Riley, 568 N.W.2d at 523.

When police rely on information provided by an informant, “all of the stated facts relating to the informer should be considered' in making a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.” State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700, 703 (Minn.1990). Police may rely on an informant’s tip if the tip has sufficient indicia of reliability. In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 691 (Minn.1997). When assessing reliability, courts examine the credibility of the informant and the basis of the informant’s knowledge in light of all the circumstances. Id.

The informant in this case was undeniably credible. He was a well-known, paid informant who had been providing police with information that had led to at least 12 convictions and who had never, to Doran’s knowledge, provided false information. See State v. Camp, 590 N.W.2d 115, 119 n. 8 (Minn.1999) (informant’s reliability enhanced by history of providing accurate information); McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d at 704 (informant’s willingness to meet face-to-face with police adds to credibility). These facts are typically sufficient to establish a CRI’s credibility. See State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 136 (Minn.1999) (noting specific details of CRI’s record not necessary and statement that informant “has been used over several years successfully” may be sufficient to infer CRTs veracity) (quoting State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 269 (Minn.1985)).

Recitation of facts establishing a CRI’s reliability by his proven “track record,” however, does not by itself establish probable cause. See 2 Wayne R. La-Fave, Search and Seizure § 3.3(b), at 121 (3d ed.1996). The information obtained from the CRI must still show a basis of knowledge. Id. This basis of knowledge may be supplied directly, by first-hand information, such as when a CRI states that he purchased drugs from a suspect or saw a suspect selling drugs to another; a basis of knowledge may also be supplied indirectly through self-verifying details that allow an inference that the information was gained in a reliable way and is not merely based on a suspect’s general reputation or on a casual rumor circulating in the criminal underworld. Id. §§ 3.3(d), (e), at 140-62. Assessment of the CRTs basis of knowledge involves consideration of the quantity and quality of detail in the CRTs report and whether pohce independently verified important details of the informant’s report. See Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 331-32, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 2417,110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).

In this case, the CRTs tip included a description of Cook’s clothing, physical appearance, vehicle, and present location. These details, however, fail to offer any explanation for the basis of the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs. The CRI never claimed that he had purchased drugs from Cook or that he had seen Cook selling drugs. Although an inference could be made that the CRI had seen Cook that morning based on his description of Cook’s clothing, that inference still does not provide a basis for the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs.

In addition, pohce did no independent corroboration other than to verify that the vehicle described by the CRI was parked in the YMCA lot and that the man leaving the YMCA and getting into the driver’s side of the vehicle matched the description of Cook given to police by the CRI. Although police were able to corroborate these details within one to one and one-half hours after receiving the CRI’s tip, these details did not predict any suspicious behavior on Cook’s part. All of .these details were entirely innocuous and lacked any incriminating aspects that might corroborate the CRTs claim that Cook was selling drugs at the YMCA. Thus, any link between Cook and illegal activity was no-nexistant.

In State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 136-37 (Minn.1999), the supreme court upheld a warrantless search of a vehicle based almost entirely on a tip from a known, reliable informant. There, police received a telephone call from the CRI regarding the time, place, and manner of delivery of cocaine. Id. at 132. When police saw a vehicle matching the CRTs description, the supreme court concluded that they had “reasonable articulable suspicion” to stop the vehicle to investigate. Id. at 136. The court concluded, however, that police did not have “probable cause” to search the vehicle until after they corroborated additional details provided by the CRI, including the identity of two of the vehicle’s occupants. Id.

Although the facts in Munson are similar in many respects to the facts of this case, there are several important distinctions. The CRI in Munson was able to predict that within one and one-half hours a green rental vehicle would pull up to a particular address with three occupants, two of whom the CRI identified by name. Id. When police saw a vehicle matching the CRI’s description pull up to the address at the time predicted by the CRI, they ran a license plate check and verified that it was a rental vehicle. Id. at 132-33. These facts gave police reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and question its occupants; once police verified the identity of two of the occupants, they had probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle. Id. at 136-37.

Here, the details provided by the CRI did not predict any future behavior on Cook’s part. Rather, the details were simply a report of Cook’s appearance and present location, details easily obtainable by anyone, not necessarily by someone with inside information on Cook. In addition, there was nothing suspicious about the time or place of the events here, which took place at midday outside the YMCA. Finally, although the man observed coming out of the YMCA matched the description given to police by the CRI, police apparently arrested the man before verifying that he was Cook.

Under Munson, police may have had “reasonable suspicion” to legally stop and question Cook to ascertain his identity. These facts, however, do not support finding that police had “probable cause” to arrest Cook at that time. See Alabama, 496 U.S. at 329-330, 110 S.Ct. at 2416 (reasonable suspicion less demanding standard than probable cause and can be established with information that is different in quantity, content, or even reliability). As already discussed, in a close case, the lack of a warrant weigh against a finding of probable cause. See Walker, 584 N.W.2d at 769.

DECISION

The district court did not err in determining that police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook. The district court’s suppression order is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

SHUMAKER, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent because I believe this case is indistinguishable in any significant way from the controlling case of State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.1999).

Here, a credible CRI with a proven track record called the police and told them that Shilow Cook was selling crack cocaine on a particular day at the YMCA located at 34th and Blaisdell in Minneapolis. He described Cook’s height, weight, approximate age, and race. The CRI described the colors of Cook’s pants and shirt and said Cook would be wearing a baseball cap. The CRI said Cook would have the dings in the waistband of his pants. The CRI also said Cook would be driving a blue Lincoln with a specific Minnesota license plate number.

The police went to the YMCA. They saw the Lincoln parked in the lot. As they watched the YMCA, they saw a man fitting the description given by the CRI leave the building and get into the Lincoln. The police arrested the man, searched him, and found 7.2 grams of crack cocaine in the waistband of his pants. This was Shi-low Cook.

On these facts, the majority holds that there are two reasons the police lacked probable cause to arrest Cook. First, there was no evidence of the basis for the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs. The CRI did not say he observed any sale of drugs, nor did he purchase drugs himself. Second, although the police verified the CRI’s descriptions before arresting Cook, these were innocent details and they “lacked any incriminating aspects” that might corroborate the CRI’s claim.

In Munson, a CRI with a proven track record called the police and said that within 1⅜ to 2 hours a rented 1996 green Bronco or jeep-type vehicle with Minnesota license plates would arrive at a specific St. Paul address. Id. at 132. In the vehicle would be three African-American males, two of whom would be Kirk Munson and Roosevelt Curtis. Id. The vehicle would contain crack cocaine and the occupants might be armed. Id.

The police went to the vicinity of the address, and a Blazer matching the general description the CRI gave drove past the officers. Id. at 132-33. The police confirmed that the vehicle was registered to a rental agency. Id. at 133. When the Blazer pulled to the curb in front of the address the CRI had given, the police turned on their squad car lights, pulled behind the Blazer, approached with weapons drawn, and ordered the three African-American male occupants to raise their hands. Id. The police then ordered the men out of the vehicle. Id. They frisked the men and found no weapons. Id. Two of the men identified themselves as Mun-son and Curtis. Id. The police used a narcotics dog to locate marijuana and cocaine in the Blazer. Id.

The supreme court upheld the search, saying:

Thus, in total, prior to searching the Blazer, the police had corroborated the type, year, and color of the vehicle, the fact that it was registered to a rental agency, its destination, the timing of its arrival, and the identity of its occupants. The independent corroboration of even innocent details of an informant’s tip may support a finding of probable cause. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the corroborated details of the CRI’s tip, together with the past reliability of the CRI, gave the police probable cause to believe that the Blazer was carrying illegal drugs * ⅝ *.

Id. at 136-37 (citatio.ns omitted).

There is nothing in the evidence.in Munson that showed the CRI’s basis for believing the vehicle would be carrying drugs. That omission did not negate probable cause. The police in Munson independently verified that the Blazer was rented and that Munson and Roosevelt were in the vehicle. Id. at 133. But these were totally innocent facts that lacked any incriminating aspects that might have corroborated the CRI’s claim that there would be illegal drugs in the Blazer. The lack of incriminating corroboration did not negate probable cause.

Here, the police corroborated the CRTs tip by observing that the car, the man, the location, and the date were precisely what the CRI said they would be. That corroboration, coupled with the CRI’s past substantial reliability, provided the same nature and degree of probable cause found in Munson.

There seems to be no meaningful distinction between the two cases. Therefore, I believe Munson should be applied as controlling law. The trial court’s suppression of the evidence was error, and I would reverse.

      . Cook was either getting into or already sitting in the driver's seat of his parked car when he was arrested. A parked car is treated as a public place for Fourth Amendment purposes. See State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98-99 (Minn.1999) (person is not "seized merely because a police officer approaches him in a public place or in a parked car and begins to ask questions”) (citation omitted).

      . Probable cause to search a vehicle is basically the same as that necessary to support an arrest, with the exception that the focus is on the vehicle, not on the person to be arrested. In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 695 (Minn. 1997).


author: WILLIS, Judge

text:
    James L. MARSHALL, Respondent, v. The INN ON MADELINE ISLAND, Appellant, John Streitz, et al., Respondents.
    No. C8-99-1748.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    May 9, 2000.

      Edward M. Glennon, Kim Ruckdaschel-Haley, Hassan Saffouri, Lindquist & Ven-num, PLLP, Minneapolis, for respondent Marshall.
    James J. Galman; Karen- R. Cote, Jar-dine, Logan &' O’Brien,’ PLLP, St. Paul, for appellant.
    Ted E. Sullivan, Sarah E. Morris, Lind, Jensen & Sullivan, Minneapolis, for respondents Streitz.
    Considered and decided by WILLIS, Presiding Judge, KALITOWSKI, Judge, - and HALBROOKS, Judge.
   OPINION

WILLIS, Judge

Appellant, a Wisconsin corporation, challenges the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss respondent Marshall’s claim for lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm.

FACTS

Appellant The Inn on Madeline Island is a Wisconsin corporation that manages properties on Madeline Island, Wisconsin, for their owners and rents those properties to the public. Robert Hartzell, a Minnesota resident, is the owner of The Inn. Respondents John and Susan Streitz are husband and wife and reside in Duluth, Minnesota. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, the Streitzes owned a vacation property on Madeline Island called Amni-con Point, which The Inn managed and rented to the public. Respondent James L. Marshall, a Minnesota resident, was vacationing at Amnieon Point in May 1996 when the accident at issue here occurred. Marshall alleges that he was standing on a dock when a board beneath him collapsed, causing injuries.

Marshall filed suit in Minnesota district court against The Inn and John and Susan Streitz, alleging that The Inn was negligent in maintaining the dock, in failing to inspect the dock, and in failing to warn him of its dangerous condition. The Inn moved for summary judgment to dismiss Marshall’s claim on the ground that the Minnesota district court lacked personal jurisdiction over The Inn. The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

ISSUE

Did the district court err in denying The Inn’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?

ANALYSIS

An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable as a matter of right. Stanek v. A.P.I., Inc., 474 N.W.2d 829, 832 (Minn.App.1991), review denied (Minn. Oct. 31, 1991), cert, denied, 503 U.S. 977, 112 S.Ct. 1603, 118 L.Ed.2d 316 (1992). The existence of personal jurisdiction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. Id. The reach of a state’s long-arm statute is a question of state law, but. whether due-process requirements are met by application of the statute is a question of federal law. Id. (citation omitted).

Two criteria müst be met before Minnesota courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident: First, the requirements of Minnesota’s long-arm statute must be satisfied. See generally Minn.Stat. § 543.19 (1998). Second, “minimum contacts” must exist between the defendant and this state in order to satisfy due process. Rostad v. On-Deck, Inc., 372 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn.1985).

Minnesota’s long-arm statute provides, in part, that

a court of this state with jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise personal jurisdiction over any foreign corporation * * * in the same manner as if it were a domestic corporation * * *. This section applies if, in person or through an agent, the foreign corporation or nonresident individual * * ⅜ transacts any business within the state * * *.

Minn.Stat. § 543.19, subd. 1, 1(b). The long-arm statute and the federal Due Process Clause are co-extensive. Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp., 495 N.W.2d 408, 410-11 (Minn.1992). In other words

[i]f the personal jurisdiction requirements of the federal constitution are met, the requirements of the long-arm statute will necessarily be met also. Thus, * * * Minnesota courts may simply apply the federal case law.

Id. at 411.

The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that a defendant have “minimum contacts” with a forum state such that maintaining jurisdiction there does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quotation omitted). It is essential that

there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum [sjtate, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The defendant must reasonably anticipate the possibility. of being haled, into the state’s courts. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980).

There is a distinction between general and specific personal jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 nn. 8-9, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872 nn. 8-9, 80 L.Ed.2d, 404 (1984); Valspar, 495 N.W.2d at 411. General jurisdiction arises when a defendant has “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales, 466 U.S. at 415-16, 104 S.Ct. at 1872-73. Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises out of or is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum. Id. at 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 8. Specific jurisdiction can arise from a single contact with the forum if the cause of action arose out of that contact. See McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957); Marquette Nat’l Bank v. Norris, 270 N.W.2d 290, 295 (Minn. 1978). Here, appellant argues that the Minnesota court has neither general- nor specific jurisdiction to decide this dispute between the parties. .

Minnesota courts use a five-factor test to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is proper:

(1)The quantity of the contacts with the forum state,
(2) The nature and quality of the contacts,
(3) The source and connection of the cause of action with these contacts,
(4) The interest of the state in providing a forum,
(5) The convenience of the parties.

Vikse v. Flaby, 316 N.W.2d 276, 282 (Minn.1982) (adopting five-factor test set forth in Aftanase v. Economy Baler Co., 343 F.2d 187, 197 (8th Cir.1965)). The first three factors are of primary importance, while the factors of state interest and convenience of the parties require lesser consideration. Denh-Air, Inc. v. Beech Mountain Air Serv., Inc., 332 N.W.2d 904, 907 (Minn.1983). Any doubt regarding the sufficiency of contacts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of finding jurisdiction. Valspar, 495 N.W.2d at 412.

1. Quantity of Contacts

The Inn is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in La Pointe, Wisconsin. The Inn is not licensed to conduct business in Minnesota, owns no real property in Minnesota, and does not have any business offices or an agent to accept service of process in Minnesota.

The Inn advertises in Minnesota publications, including Minnesota Monthly magazine and Duluth, St. Paul, and Minneapolis newspapers. The Inn also solicits business in Minnesota by mailing advertisements to Minnesota residents who are past guests.

In addition, The Inn contracts for its services with Minnesota residents, who own approximately 50% of the properties on Madeline Island that are managed by The Inn. The Inn also corresponds by mail and by telephone with Minnesota residents who express interest in vacationing at properties managed by The Inn.

The Inn often purchases food and other goods and services from Minnesota. It has purchased a telephone system, cash-register system, linen, and restaurant equipment in Minnesota. Finally, The Inn’s employees have traveled to Minnesota for annual meetings, for training to use the cash-register system, and to buy goods as needed at The Inn.

The quantity of contacts here supports the exercise of personal jurisdiction by Minnesota courts.

2. Nature and Quality of Contacts

For purposes of determining whether personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant exists, there is a distinction between contacts by purchasers of goods and services from Minnesota residents and contacts by sellers of goods and services to Minnesota residents. Compare Walker Management, Inc. v. FHC Enters., Inc., 446 N.W.2d 913 (Minn.App.1989) (declining jurisdiction over nonresident purchaser of services from Minnesota company where contacts included telephone calls, correspondence, and payments), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1989), and S.B. Schmidt Paper Co. v. A to Z Paper Co., 452 N.W.2d 485 (Minn.App.1990) (declining jurisdiction over nonresident purchaser of paper from Minnesota-seller of paper where all contacts were by telephone and mail), with State by Humphrey v. Granite Gate Resorts, Inc., 568 N.W.2d 715 (Minn.App.1997) (exercising jurisdiction where Nevada internet-gambling provider solicited business from Minnesota residents), aff'd mem., 576 N.W.2d 747 (Minn.1998). In this respect, The Inn plays a dual role. It purchases goods and services from Minnesota businesses and sends employees to Minnesota on Inn-related business; it also directly solicits, contracts with, and receives a substantial amount of business from Minnesota residents.

Jurisdiction may be proper when a nonresident’s contacts are directed at attaining a commercial benefit in Minnesota. See, e.g., Kopperud v. Agers, 312 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Minn.1981) (exercising jurisdiction where foreign defendant’s contacts involved scheme to defraud Minnesota investors). Here, The Inn directly solicits business from Minnesota residents through direct mail and advertisements in Minnesota publications. Direct solicitation and sales of goods and services to Minnesota residents come within the purposeful availment contemplated by International Shoe. See 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. at 159-60; Hanson, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240.

Appellant relies on Jenson v. R.L.K. & Co., 534 N.W.2d 719 (Minn.App.1995), review denied (Minn. Sept. 20, 1995), for the proposition that general advertisements, telephone calls for reservations, and collection of deposits are not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. In Jenson, this court held that a nonresident defendant did not have “systematic and continuous” contacts with Minnesota giving rise to the exercise of general jurisdiction where the defendant advertised in national publications, solicited business from the public at large, and responded to Minnesota residents’ requests for information. 534 N.W.2d at 720. But we find Jenson to be distinguishable. Here, The Inn directly targets Minnesota residents. And “Minnesota courts have concluded that defendants who know their message will be broadcast in this state are subject to suit here.” Granite Gate Resorts, 568 N.W.2d at 719 (citations omitted).

The Inn also has entered into contractual relationships with Minnesota-based businesses and with Minnesota residents who own property on Madeline Island. When a defendant deliberately engages in significant activities in a state or creates continuing obligations between itself and residents of the state, the defendant “purposefully avails” itself of the protections of the law, as required to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. First Heartland Sur. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 468 N.W.2d 563, 565 (Minn.App.1991).

The nature and quality of The Inn’s contacts with Minnesota support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

3. Nexus Between the Cause of Action and the Contacts

Next, we consider the relationship between The Inn’s contacts with Minnesota and the cause of action. Marshall argues that specific jurisdiction exists because The Inn’s contacts with Minnesota gave rise to his cause of action for negligence. In support of his argument, Marshall contends that he first learned about The Inn in a magazine directed at Minnesota readers. Marshall also argues that the rental agreement between The Inn and the Streitzes resulted from The Inn’s contacts with the Streitzes in Minnesota. Finally, Marshall argues that after he was injured, The Inn contacted him in Minnesota and asked him to complete a customer-injury report form, which he completed in Minnesota and mailed back to The Inn. Marshall contends that each of these contacts has a direct nexus with the lawsuit, and, therefore, Minnesota courts have specific jurisdiction over The Inn."

Marshall’s argument is flawed in two ways. First, advertising contacts can justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction but only where unlawful or misleading advertisements are the basis of the plaintiffs claims. See Granite Gate Resorts, 568 N.W.2d at 720. And entering into a contract with a Minnesota resident can justify the exercise of specific jurisdiction but only where the dispute involves the contract. See, e.g., Domtar, Inc. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 533 N.W.2d 25, 31 (Minn. 1995). Here, Marshall’s claim of negligence has its basis neither in The Inn’s Minnesota advertisements nor in its rental agreement with the Streitzes.

Second, The Inn’s contacts with Marshall in Minnesota following his injury did not give rise to his cause of action. The events on which Marshall bases his cause of action preceded those contacts. Therefore, there is no nexus between the cause of action and The Inn’s contacts with Minnesota that would support the exercise of specific jurisdiction over The Inn by Minnesota courts.

4. Minnesota’s Interest in Providing a Forum and the Convenience of the Parties

The last two factors are less significant. Dentr-Air, Inc., 332 N.W.2d at 907. Minnesota has a strong interest in providing a forum for its citizens to address tortious conduct. See V.H. v. Estate of Birnbaum, 543 N.W.2d 649, 658 (Minn. 1996). Because Marshall sued The Inn for negligence, Minnesota has a strong interest in providing a forum.

Finally, convenience of the parties must be considered. Both Marshall and the Streitzes live in Minnesota. The Streitzes live in Duluth where the case is venued. Additionally, Hartzell, The Inn’s owner, is a Minnesota resident. Because employees of The Inn regularly take trips to Duluth on behalf of The Inn, travel to Duluth to appear in court should not be inconvenient for representatives of The Inn.

Because Minnesota has an interest in providing a forum and because appearing in Minnesota is not inconvenient for the parties, these factors favor the exercise of personal jurisdiction over The Inn.

Application of the Vikse five-factor test leads us to the conclusion that The Inn’s contacts with Minnesota support the exercise of general jurisdiction by this state’s courts. A defendant’s contacts with the forum state that are unrelated to the cause of action can satisfy the due-process requirements for the exercise of personal jurisdiction if 'they constitute the kind of continuous and systematic general business contacts that indicate the defendant has generally subjected itself to jurisdiction in this state. See TRWL Fin. Establishment v. Select Int'l Inc., 527 N.W.2d 573, 576 (Minn.App.1995) (stating that contacts sufficient to satisfy due process are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the long-arm statute). Here, The Inn’s contacts with Minnesota include solicitation of business through advertisements in Minnesota publications and telephone calls and mail to residents of Minnesota who rent from The Inn. The Inn also contracts with residents of Minnesota who own property on Madeline Island, purchases goods and services in Minnesota, and sends employees to attend meetings and training in Minnesota. Therefore, we conclude that the district court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over The Inn.

DECISION

The district court did not err in denying The Inn’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Affirmed.

      . Over the past decade, The Inn has had ongoing relationships with several Minnesota businesses that provide goods or services to The Inn, including: Alliant Food Services in Eagan, Jay En of Duluth in Duluth, Retail Data Systems in Plymouth, Lyntex in St. Paul, and Superior Products in Roseville; The Inn expects that its expenditures with these Minnesota-based businesses will increase annually.