State v. Barajas
2012 Minn. App. LEXIS 76
Minn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Moorhead police responded to a trespass report at a rental property and detained Barajas after Border Patrol determined he was unlawfully residing in the U.S.
- A red prepaid cellular telephone was found in the apartment; its contents included photographs that allegedly linked Barajas to trafficking.
- Officer Schroeder opened the phone and viewed photographs while determining the owner, and then Wiedenmeyer secured two additional phones.
- Border Patrol obtained Barajas’s signed consent to search his phones after transporting him to a border station; three photographs were recovered during the search.
- Police later recovered five bags of methamphetamine, a digital scale, and various packaging and money-related materials from the apartment.
- Barajas was charged with first-degree possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell, and moved to suppress the three photographs; the district court initially suppressed them but later admitted them, and Barajas was convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless search of Barajas’s cellular telephone—reasonable? | Barajas argues the search violated the Fourth Amendment (no warrant). | Barajas contends consent was involuntary and tainted by the prior unlawful search; taint could not be purged. | The search was not constitutionally reasonable without a warrant; the taint could not be purged, and the photographs were inadmissible. |
| Admission of photographs from the cellular phone—relevance and prejudice? | The photographs were irrelevant and prejudicial and should have been excluded. | The photographs were probative of money and credibility and supported by other evidence. | Admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Admission of drug-courier-profile testimony—error? | Testimony about drug-courier profiles was improper evidence. | Testimony helped explain the relevance of the items to drug trafficking and was not impermissibly character-based. | Not reversible error; testimony did not prejudice substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484 (Minn.2005) (de novo review of warrantless searches; container-privacy concepts in cellphones)
- In re Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565 (Minn.2008) (subjective expectation of privacy; protected contents of containers)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (foundational privacy doctrine; expectation of privacy applies to information in digital form)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (closed-container protection extends to digital contents when concealed)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (U.S. 1982) (policy that contents of closed containers are generally protected from warrantless intrusion)
- California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1988) (reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage; analogy for containers)
- Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (U.S. 2000) (privacy in private items; standards for reasonable expectation of privacy)
- State v. Williams, 525 N.W.2d 538 (Minn.1994) (drug-courier-profile evidence analysis; admissibility)