918 N.W.2d 237
Minn. Ct. App.2018Background
- Police obtained a daytime, announced search warrant targeting W.B.'s Bloomington apartment, his vehicle, and person based on an informant tip about W.B.'s drug sales; Hill was not named in the warrant.
- Officers executed the warrant; both W.B. and Hill were present. A pat-down of Hill revealed $4,500, which the district court later suppressed.
- Officers found paperwork in the apartment showing a separate, padlocked storage locker in the building assigned to Hill; they found the locker key in the apartment, opened the locker, and seized suspected heroin and two firearms.
- Hill (a felon) was charged with two first-degree controlled-substance counts and two unlawful-possession-of-firearm counts. He moved to suppress the locker evidence; the court denied suppression for the locker but suppressed the pat-search evidence.
- Hill agreed to a stipulated-evidence bench trial on one firearm count to preserve issues for appeal; the court acquitted him on that count for lack of proof of prior conviction. The state then sought to proceed on the remaining three counts; the district court allowed it and later convicted Hill on the other firearm count.
- On appeal the court reversed the denial of suppression for the storage locker (search exceeded the warrant) but affirmed that continued prosecution did not violate double jeopardy because Hill had consented to severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search of Hill's separate storage locker exceeded the scope of the warrant | Hill: locker was outside the premises named in the warrant and not subject of the warrant; evidence should be suppressed | State: locker was appurtenant/within scope because key was in the searched apartment and locker reasonably connected to the premises | The search exceeded the warrant's four corners; suppression of locker evidence required (reversed denial of suppression) |
| Whether continuing prosecution on remaining counts after acquittal on the severed count violated double jeopardy/serialized prosecution protections | Hill: acquittal on count 4 should bar further prosecution of related counts under double jeopardy/statutory serial-prosecution protections | State: Hill voluntarily consented to sever the charges and submit one count first; consenting defendant cannot later claim serial-prosecution bar | No double jeopardy violation; district court correctly allowed prosecution to continue (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 2012) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Dreyer, 345 N.W.2d 249 (Minn. 1984) (garage held part of premises for warrant purposes)
- United States v. Thompson, 690 F.3d 977 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding search of storage room outside apartment when resident had key)
- United States v. Ware, 890 F.2d 1008 (8th Cir. 1989) (locked storage outside apartment within warrant scope when lease/access and key existed)
- State v. Wills, 524 N.W.2d 507 (Minn. App. 1994) (safe inside apartment subject to warrant even though owner not named)
- State v. Jackson, 742 N.W.2d 163 (Minn. 2007) (evidence from warrant lacking particularized probable cause must be suppressed)
- United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2005) (probable cause must appear within the four corners of the affidavit absent extra-record facts)
- United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (jeopardy attaches in bench trial when judge begins receiving evidence)
- Santiago v. State, 644 N.W.2d 425 (Minn. 2002) (preverdict termination bars retrial unless defendant consents or manifest necessity exists)
- State v. Martinez-Mendoza, 804 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2011) (defendant who pleads/severs some charges may not later claim serialized-prosecution protection)