State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome OÂ�Brien, A16-373

Police received a confidential tip that O’Brien sold controlled substances from his home and possessed a firearm.
Officers performed a trash pull and recovered narcotics-related items and Q-tips that tested positive for methamphetamine.
Police obtained a nighttime search warrant for controlled substances, proceeds, and data devices; the warrant did not list firearms.
During execution of the warrant, an officer lifted a couch cushion (an area where contraband is commonly hidden) and found a loaded semi-automatic firearm.
O’Brien moved to suppress the firearm on Fourth Amendment particularity and warrantless-search grounds; the district court denied suppression, and O’Brien appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the firearm seizure was lawful under the plain-view exception	Seizure was unlawful because officers expected a firearm and did not list it in the warrant, so discovery was not "inadvertent"	Plain-view exception applies; three Milton prongs satisfied, so firearm admissible	Court affirmed: Minnesota does not require inadvertence for plain-view; Milton factors control
Whether the search warrant failed the particularity requirement as to the firearm	The warrant’s failure to list firearms violated particularity	Even if particularity lacking, admissibility can be justified by a warrant exception	Court: particularity issue unnecessary to resolve because plain-view exception validated the seizure

Milton v. State, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (sets three prong plain-view test)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (proscribes inadvertence as a required element of federal plain-view doctrine)
Bradford v. State, 618 N.W.2d 782 (Minn. 2000) (earlier Minnesota opinion referencing inadvertent-discovery language)
State v. Holland, 865 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. 2015) (applies Milton’s three-factor plain-view framework)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) (discusses limits on exploratory searches and particularity principles)