§ 626.14

State v. Jackson · 2007 32 citations

+ 32 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jordan · 2007 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Bourke · 2006 8 citations

+ 8 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Quick · 2003 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Winchell · 1985 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Kaminski · 1980 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Marie Hansen · 2024 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Mike · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos · 2015 11 citations

+ 11 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson · 2015 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Jordan · 2007 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Amundson · 2006 2 citations

I. Amundson first argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the September 29, 2004 search. He argues that there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant and that the no-knock and nighttime provisions were not supported by sufficient or legally obtained information. The United States and Minnesota constitutions provide that no warrant shall issue without a showing of probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. Generally, a search is lawful only if it is executed under a valid search warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate upon a finding of probable cause. Minn. Stat. § 626.08 (2002); State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Minn.1999). To determine whether probable cause exists, the issuing magistrate must make a practical, commonsense decision whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 268 (Minn. 1985) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)). We review a search-warrant application to determine whether the issuing magistrate had a "substantial basis" to conclude that probable cause exists. State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624, 633 (Minn.1995) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. at 2332). But we will not review each component of the search-warrant application and affidavit in isolation but must determine the sufficiency of the application from its totality. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d at 268. A magistrate has a substantial basis when there is a "fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id. (quotation omitted). We give great deference to the issuing magistrate's probable-cause determination. State v. Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d 802, 804 (Minn.2001). Here, the search-warrant application provides a substantial basis for the issuing magistrate to conclude that probable cause *565 exists. It describes the September 24 incident and contains excerpts from the messages left on M.A.'s voicemail in which Amundson threatened to hurt M.A. The search-warrant application lists the items believed to be at Amundson's house and explains their connection to terroristicthreat and felony-pattern-of-harassments charges. We conclude that the searchwarrant application, when viewed in its totality, provided a reasonable basis for the issuing magistrate to conclude that probable cause exists. The search warrant provisions authorizing a no-knock and a nighttime search of Amundson's house is the issue. We independently determine whether evidence obtained during a search conducted with a no-knock warrant should be suppressed. State v. Wasson, 615 N.W.2d 316, 320 (Minn.2000). When reviewing a determination that an unannounced entry is warranted, the standard of review is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Id. Although the United States Supreme Court has stated that this showing "is not high," Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1422, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997), a request for a no-knock provision must be based on more than an unarticulated hunch. Wasson, 615 N.W.2d at 320. The application "must point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue." Id. Boilerplate language that an announced entry would be dangerous is insufficient. Id. Failure to supply the necessary supportive facts for a no-knock provision will nullify the search warrant. Garza v. State, 632 N.W.2d 633, 638 (Minn.2001). Requests for nighttime search warrants require similar support. State v. Lien, 265 N.W.2d 833, 840 (Minn.1978). Minnesota law requires that search warrants must be executed between "7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. unless the court determines on the basis of the facts stated in the affidavits that a nighttime search outside those hours is necessary to prevent the loss, destruction, or removal of the objects of the search or to protect the searchers or the public." Minn. Stat. § 626.14 (2002). Nighttime searches are discouraged because they generally involve "a much greater intrusion upon privacy and [are] presumably more alarming than an ordinary daytime search of a home." Lien, 265 N.W.2d at 839-40. Section 626.14 requires that the application demonstrate by more than "bare assertions" that the warrant can only be executed successfully in the nighttime. Id. at 840. The search-warrant application here cited boilerplate officer safety as the reason for both the no-knock and nighttime provisions. The stated concern for officer safety was based on the presence of firearms at Amundson's house. The information regarding the presence of firearms was obtained from the warrantless entry of the house on September 17, 2003. Amundson argues that this information was illegally obtained and improperly considered by the issuing magistrate. The state argues that the September 17 warrantless entry was legal under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement. Under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, police may make a warrantless entry and search a home when they reasonably believe that a person within is in need of immediate aid. State v. Halla-Poe, 468 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Minn.App.1991) (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2413, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978), and State v. Terrell, 283 N.W.2d 529, 532 (Minn.1979)). The officers that entered Amundson's house were investigating a car crash and had information that a wounded motorist was there. The state argues that the police were concerned that the motorist *566 might not be able to answer the door because of his injuries and that a warrantless entry was therefore required. The state's argument is dubious. We cannot think of a reason why, if the injured motorist was present at Amundson's house, the door would be locked. Presumably, the injured motorist or Amundson would have called for the appropriate help and waited. If the injured motorist was not well enough to drive, presumably he would have had Amundson drive him to medical help or call another friend. Someone coming into someone else's house injured does not normally think, "Oops, I'd better lock the door." It is worthy of note that the police do not claim that the "injured motorist" was suspected of being a fleeing felon and that they were in "hot pursuit." If that were the record, that would provide a legitimate reason for their entry and explain the door locked from the inside. We do not have those facts. The state's reliance on the emergency exception to the warrant requirement is pure speculation. We conclude the information regarding the presence of firearms at Amundson's house was not legally obtained and thus not available for consideration in the search-warrant application. Moreover, the affidavit indicates that police encountered Amundson twice in the days prior to executing the search warrant. The first encounter happened at Amundson's house after the warrantless entry. A second encounter occurred a week later, after the criminal conduct directed toward his estranged wife. On that day, a deputy, with full knowledge of Amundson's alleged violent conduct, went to his home during the day to attempt service of the order for protection. Although Amundson was not home, the deputy found him nearby and served the order without incident. Neither encounter involved any violence on Amundson's part or compromise to officer safety. It is disingenuous to argue that officer safety was a serious concern necessitating no-knock and nighttime provisions. In light of the recent peaceful encounters with Amundson and without the information regarding the presence of firearms, the search-warrant application has no particularized showing of dangerousness. The application fails to point to something that objectively supports concern for officer safety. We find the no-knock and nighttime provisions in the search warrant are invalid. The search executed on that warrant was unauthorized and the evidence seized must be suppressed.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Goodwin · 2004 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Alt · 1991 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Lindsey · 1990 1 citation

We reject the state’s other arguments in support of the warrant process employed here. First, Minnesota has so far declined to apply the good faith exception. State v. McCloskey, 451 N.W.2d 225 (Minn.App.1990), reversed 453 N.W.2d 700, 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990) (declining to address Leon good faith exception, although suggested in court of appeals dissent). Moreover, in this state the telephonic search warrant is not a recognized procedure in which a police officer could have an objective good faith belief. See generally United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 919 n. 20, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3419 n. 20, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (emphasizing objective nature of “good faith” standard of reasonableness). We observe there are no statutory provisions to guide judges in authorizing telephonic search warrants. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 626.14 (1988) (statutorily-required showing for warrant authorizing nighttime search). Even if such guidelines existed, the lack of a showing of need and the failure to record the application would not be minor or technical omissions. Cf. State v. Quinn, 436 N.W.2d 758, 767 (Minn.1989) (not every technical omission from compliance with wiretap statutes would justify suppression).

State v. Ailport · 1987 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Misfit Coffee Company, LLC v. Donatell · 2025 6 citations

+ 6 more citations in this opinion.