State v. Euchner

• Decision Date: 03 August 2022
• Docket Number: 21-0962
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL WILLIAM EUCHNER SR., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL WILLIAM EUCHNER SR., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-0962

Court of Appeals of Iowa

August 3, 2022

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Julie Schumacher (suppression) and Zachary Hindman (trial), Judges.

A defendant appeals his drug convictions, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress and the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich (until withdrawal) and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Badding, J., and Gamble, S.J. ^[*]

Schumacher, J., takes no part.

1

BADDING, JUDGE

While investigating an illegally parked car in an alley, two deputies smelled marijuana coming from a nearby property owned by Michael Euchner Sr. A search warrant was issued the next day but not executed until five days after that, at which time law enforcement found drugs, related paraphernalia, baggies, cash, and scales. Euchner unsuccessfully moved to suppress this evidence and was convicted of possessing both methamphetamine and marijuana with the intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug-tax stamp. Euchner appeals, claiming the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because "plain smell" does not establish probable cause and the information used to obtain the warrant was stale by the time it was executed. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show he intended to deliver methamphetamine or marijuana.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

At roughly 10:30 p.m. on October 27, 2018, Deputies Alex Ehlers and Kirk Kinnaman of the Ida County Sheriff's Office were checking on a vehicle that was illegally parked in an alley behind Euchner's residence. A separate building known as "PC repair" is also located on the property.^[1] According to the search warrant application, after Deputy Ehlers got out of his vehicle, he "could smell the odor of marijuana coming from around the area of the PC repair building. [He] then walked to the back door of the house and could also smell the odor of marijuana coming from the back door entrance of the house as well." Ehlers summoned Deputy Kinnaman to the area and asked if he could smell the odor. Kinnaman responded

2

that he could smell marijuana "coming from around the PC repair building and from the back door area as well." After knocking on the door to the residence and receiving no response, Deputy Ehlers applied for a search warrant based on the marijuana smell wafting from the property. The application detailed the deputies' training and experience with drug cases, noting that both were K9 handlers and familiar with the smell of marijuana. A magistrate granted the search warrant application the next day, October 28.

The warrant was executed five days later, on November 2. As a result of the evidence obtained from the search, Euchner was charged with various drug crimes. Euchner filed a motion to suppress, arguing that law enforcement lacked probable cause to believe that evidence listed on the application, "with the possible exception of marijuana," was located on the property and any information supporting probable cause was stale by the time the warrant was executed. The district court rejected both arguments in its ruling denying Euchner's motion.

The case proceeded to a jury trial in May 2021. Deputies Ehlers and Kinnaman testified that their investigation of Euchner started when they smelled burnt marijuana at his property on October 27. Before the warrant was executed, law enforcement broke up into two teams-one to secure the residence and one to secure the business. Deputy Ehlers testified that, upon arrival at the property, he could smell marijuana outside the computer repair building. Ehlers proceeded to the residence with team one. Inside the home, they found Euchner, his wife, and another couple at the kitchen table playing cards. Euchner's son, a female, and a minor child were found upstairs. No one was present in the business upon team two's breach of that building.

3

After Euchner was read his Miranda rights, Deputy Ehlers asked him to "take us to the narcotics." Euchner led them to the computer repair building. Once there, he pointed the officers to a desk drawer that contained two methamphetamine pipes and a small bag of marijuana. At this point, Euchner advised, "I'm just a consumer guys, I'm not like . . . a big bad guy." In a separate drawer, Deputy Ehlers found "multiple bundles of baggies," which he testified "are used to package narcotics," and a baggie with methamphetamine in it. Euchner said he used the baggies to store computer parts, but no baggies with parts were found.

All in all, law enforcement found 21.89 grams of methamphetamine and 25.00 grams of marijuana in the computer repair building. The methamphetamine was found among three bags in Euchner's desk, containing respective amounts of 1.15 grams, 6.91 grams, and 13.83 grams. Deputy Ehlers testified: "Usually to the user, a gram of methamphetamine is a lot. They're usually sold in gram increments or less." Deputy Kinnaman agreed, testifying that a typical user would possess "[u]p to a gram."

The marijuana was found in a mason jar in the bottom drawer of Euchner's desk. Two digital scales were also found in the desk, one of which had a green, leafy substance on it. And officers found $1394.00 in cash at the business, mostly consisting of $1.00 bills, $320.00 in quarters, $85.60 in dimes, and $65.30 in nickels. At the residence, officers uncovered a marijuana roach in the nightstand of an upstairs bedroom. The roach was inside one of the pill pouch baggies like those found in the business building.

4

After Euchner was arrested and the search ended, he was interviewed by Deputy Ehlers. During the interview, Euchner told the deputy he would do controlled buys for the police, touting his ability to get "pounds of methamphetamine." This led Deputy Ehlers to believe that Euchner had been in the "game for a while. He has higher connections. Your general user does not have that connection."

The jury ultimately found Euchner guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and failure to affix a drug-tax stamp. Following the guilty verdicts, Euchner moved for a new trial and renewed a motion for judgment of acquittal he made at trial, both of which were denied at the time of sentencing.

II. Standards of Review

Appellate review of a challenge to a search warrant for an alleged lack of probable cause is de novo, based on the totality of the circumstances. See State v. McNeal, 867 N.W.2d 91, 99 (Iowa 2015). Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction are reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 517 (Iowa 2022).

III. Analysis A. Search Warrant

In challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, Euchner argues the search warrant was not supported by probable cause because the "plain smell" doctrine is unreliable and the "information in this case was stale" given the time between the issuance of the warrant and its execution. Though Euchner intertwines his arguments about plain smell and staleness, we view them as

5

separate issues-the former on the initial existence of probable cause and the latter on the dissipation of probable cause due to passage of time. We accordingly address them separately, starting with the plain-smell doctrine.

1. Does the search warrant pass the smell test?

When examining challenges to probable cause to support a warrant, we "do not make an independent determination of probable cause." McNeal, 867 N.W.2d at 100. Instead, we merely determine "whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding probable cause existed." Id. (quoting State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 1997)). "[W]e draw all reasonable inferences to support the judge's finding of probable cause and give great deference to the judge's finding"-"[c]lose cases are decided in favor of upholding the validity of the warrant." Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Gogg, 561 N.W.2d at 364).

This is not a close case. Euchner simply argues the plain-smell doctrine "should be rejected on the basis of unreliability," pointing to what he says are undetectable differences between the odor of legal and illegal items containing THC, as well as "the mobility of odors." But we cannot reject a doctrine that has been...