State v. Fawcett

• Decision Date: 24 August 2016
• Docket Number: No. A15–0938.,A15–0938.
• Citation: 884 N.W.2d 380
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Debra Lee FAWCETT, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

884 N.W.2d 380

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Debra Lee FAWCETT, Appellant.

No. A15–0938.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 24, 2016.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, MN; and Anthony C. Palumbo, Anoka County Attorney, Kelsey R. Kelley, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, MN, for respondent.

Mark D. Nyvold, Fridley, MN, for appellant.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The State charged appellant Debra Fawcett with criminal vehicular operation, Minn.Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1(2) (2012).¹ Fawcett moved to suppress “all evidence of the presence of drugs” found in her blood, arguing that the warrant application and supporting affidavit failed to provide a lawful basis to test her blood for controlled substances. The district court granted Fawcett's suppression motion. The State filed a pretrial appeal challenging the district court's suppression order. The court of appeals reversed. Because we conclude that the warrant application and supporting affidavit provided probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal vehicular operation would be found in Fawcett's blood and because the warrant satisfies the Particularity Clause in the Fourth Amendment, we affirm.

On May 24, 2014, Fawcett drove her car through a highway intersection on a red light causing a collision with a car driven by L.S. When police officers arrived at the scene, they observed that L.S. was bleeding and likely had a broken leg or ankle. As they waited for medical personnel to arrive, one of the officers spoke with Fawcett who had sustained minor injuries as a result of the crash. While interacting with Fawcett, the officers smelled alcohol on her breath, and Fawcett admitted that she had consumed “two to three beers” earlier. When the medical personnel arrived at the scene, they placed Fawcett on a stretcher and transported her to Mercy Hospital.

Meanwhile, a police detective applied for a warrant to search a sample of Fawcett's blood for “evidence of the crime of criminal vehicular operation/homicide.” The warrant application and supporting affidavit alleged the following facts. At approximately 5:08 p.m. on May 24, 2014, officers from the Blaine Police Department responded to a motor vehicle crash at Highway 65 and 109th Avenue in the City of Blaine, Anoka County. One or more persons suffered bodily harm as a result of the crash, including “significant foot and ankle injuries and inability to move their leg[s].” “The victim and several witnesses placed Fawcett behind the wheel of a vehicle that ran a red light. Fawcett admitted to the officers that she was driving and had been drinking prior to the crash.” “From their investigation, officers formed the belief that at the time of the collision ... Fawcett was the driver and was under the influence of alcohol.” “Fawcett admitted to responding officers that she had two or three drinks just prior to the crash, she smelled of an alcoholic beverage and it was apparent to officers on-scene that she had been drinking.” Based on the above-described facts, the detective sought “a blood sample of [Fawcett] as evidence of the crime of criminal vehicular operation/homicide.”

Incorporating the detective's application and affidavit into the warrant by reference, the issuing judge found “probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant upon the following grounds: The property above-described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.” The issuing judge also found that “due to the dissipation of alcohol/drugs in the human body this warrant may be served at anytime during the day or night.” Based on these findings, the judge issued a warrant that authorized the executing peace officer to “[c]ause a blood sample to be taken from [Fawcett] at Mercy Hospital” and “[f]orward said blood sample to an approved lab for testing.”

When the police detective arrived at the hospital with the signed warrant, Fawcett took a preliminary breath test (“PBT”) and a medical professional conducted a blood draw. The result of the PBT was a reading of .000. After the PBT, Fawcett told the officers that she was depressed and was currently taking Lorazepam and Wellbutrin.

One month later, on June 24, 2014, the police detective received a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) report that stated that there was no ethyl alcohol in Fawcett's blood sample. The report noted that “additional toxicology report(s) [would] follow.” The detective received a second BCA report on September 9, 2014. It indicated that Fawcett's blood contained a metabolite of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Alprazolam at the time of the accident.

On October 16, 2014, the State filed a complaint against Fawcett alleging that she had committed criminal vehicular operation in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.21, subd. 1(2)(ii) (2012). This statute makes it a crime to cause injury to another while operating a motor vehicle in a negligent manner while under the influence of a controlled substance.

Fawcett moved to suppress “all evidence of the presence of drugs,” arguing that the warrant application did not provide any basis for police to test her blood for controlled substances. The district court granted Fawcett's suppression motion. Although the court determined that the blood sample was lawfully obtained under the warrant, it concluded that the subsequent testing of the blood sample for the presence of drugs was unlawful. As part of its analysis, the court said, tests of Fawcett's blood were “limited in scope to the probable cause presented in the application and affidavit, namely, a search of [Fawcett's] blood to obtain evidence of alcohol use.”

The State filed a pretrial appeal of the suppression order under Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 1(1). In its statement of the case, the State asserted that the suppression order had a critical impact on its ability to prosecute because “[t]he test result demonstrating that [Fawcett's] blood sample contained a controlled substance constitutes all of the state's evidence to prove that [Fawcett] was under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of the crash.”²

The court of appeals reversed the suppression order, holding that Fawcett did not “retain[ ] privacy interests in the contents of her lawfully obtained blood sample,” so the subsequent chemical analysis for drugs was “not a distinct Fourth Amendment event.” State v. Fawcett, 877 N.W.2d 555, 561–62 (Minn.App.2016). We granted Fawcett's petition for review.

On appeal, Fawcett does not argue that there was police misconduct or that the police did anything improper in executing the warrant. Rather, she argues that the warrant did not provide probable cause for the police to test her blood for controlled substances. Specifically, Fawcett notes that the warrant application sets forth the officer's belief that she was under the influence of alcohol but does not mention controlled substances. According to Fawcett, all of the facts alleged in the warrant application relate directly to alcohol intoxication and therefore the issuing magistrate was required to limit the testing to evidence of alcohol. Fawcett also argues that the warrant to search her blood was overbroad because it allowed the police to search for more than the warrant application would otherwise allow, and that therefore, the warrant runs afoul of the Particularity Clause in the Fourth Amendment. We address each argument in turn.³

I.

We turn first to the question of whether the facts alleged in the warrant application and supporting affidavit supported testing Fawcett's blood for controlled substances. The warrant authorized the police to seize Fawcett's blood and forward it “to an approved lab for testing.” The warrant did not specify what type of testing the blood would undergo. Because the warrant application referenced only the influence of alcohol, Fawcett argues that the warrant application did not provide probable cause to test for controlled substances. We disagree.

When reviewing a judge's decision to issue a search warrant, our only consideration is whether the issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d 802, 804 (Minn.2001). Our review is limited to the information presented in the warrant application and supporting affidavit. State v. Holland, 865 N.W.2d 666, 673 (Minn.2015). We must consider the totality of the circumstances alleged in the supporting affidavit and “must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 268 (Minn.1985). The task of the issuing judge is

simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

State v. Jenkins, 782 N.W.2d 211, 223 (Minn.2010) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (emphasis added)). We defer to the issuing magistrate, recognizing that “doubtful or marginal cases should be ‘largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.’ ” State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn.1990) (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965) ); see State v. Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922, 927 (Minn.2006) (“[W]e give ‘great deference to the issuing judge's determination’ of probable cause for a search warrant.” (quoting State v. Jones, 678 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn.2004) )); Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d at 804 (same); State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 791 (Minn.1999) (“[T]he resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be ‘largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.’ ” (quoting Wiley, 366 N.W.2d at 268 )).

Applying this well-established law to the facts of this case, we conclude that...