State v. Kremer
| Decision Date | 27 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 44728,44728 |
| Citation | 307 Minn. 309,239 N.W.2d 476 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Fred L. KREMER, Appellant. |
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Peter Van Bergen, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., William B. Randall, County Atty., Steven C. DeCoster, Asst. County Atty., St. Paul, for respondent.
Heard before PETERSON, TODD, and SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.
Fred L. Kremer (Kremer) appeals from his convictions of coercion and felonious theft. We also review the trial court's order denying postconviction relief. Kremer challenges the legality of the basis for the court's issuing the type of search warrant which it did, but presents no record to this court of ever having raised this question in the lower court. Affirmed.
Kremer's conviction arises out of an extortion scheme involving the wife of a supermarket owner, who received a telephone call on February 23, 1973, informing her that she had won a prize consisting in part of tickets to a play. While she was attending the play, her husband was telephoned and instructed to remove money from his supermarket's safe and leave it in his car, under threat of harm being inflicted upon his wife if he did not cooperate.
On March 6, 1973, Sergeant Robert Hark of the Washington County sheriff's office was told by a Stillwater police officer that one Steven Fisher, who was under arrest for being A.W.O.L., had some information for him. The gist of Fisher's information was that, while visting Kremer's home in Stillwater sometime around February 1973, he overheard a conversation among Kremer and two other men concerning a plan which bore a striking resemblance to the plot carried out against the supermarket owner and his wife, described above. Surveillance of the husband and wife was to be accomplished by the use of walkie-talkies. The money thus obtained was to be used to buy drugs in California. The facts surrounding the extortion scheme had not yet been revealed to the media, so Hark had to consult the Maplewood Police Department (the supermarket owner and his wife resided in Maplewood) to learn that a plan such as Fisher described had recently been executed.
Acting on Fisher's information, as well as that of a confidential reliable informant who stated that he had observed certain controlled substances at Kremer's residence as recently as 3 days earlier, Hark obtained a warrant for the search of Kremer's home. The affidavit in support of the search warrant alleged that both a nighttime search and an unannounced entry were necessary, and the county court judge issued a warrant for a search of this type. Accordingly, Officer Hark, accompanied by two other police officers, arrived at Kremer's home at 11:30 p.m. on March 6 and, initially unable to open the door, knocked out the door's glass portion, reached inside, and opened it. Among the items which were seized from the house were three walkie-talkies on the same frequency, two ticket receipts in Kremer's name reserving passage from the Twin Cities to Los Angeles dated February 24, 1973, a shotgun, and controlled substances.
These items were admitted into evidence over Kremer's objection, which was based on a general allegation of lack of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. The transcripts of the Rasmussen hearing and the trial on the merits revealed that Kremer did not assert his present challenges to the warrant's validity at either of these proceedings. In the course of presenting his argument at the Rasmussen hearing that there was no probable cause for the warrant's issuance, Kremer's counsel did aver in passing that the requisite probable cause was particularly lacking in view of the fact that a nighttime execution was contemplated. As Kremer's counsel conceded at oral argument, the 'no-knock' aspect of the warrant and search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Minn. v. Finnegan
...district court on postconviction review. Issues not raised before the district court are waived on appeal. See State v. Kremer, 307 Minn. 309, 312-13, 239 N.W.2d 476, 478 (1976). Further, Finnegan did not raise the issue in his petition for review to our court, which also waives the issue o......
-
State v. Merrill
...did not raise this issue at either the omnibus hearing or the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. See, State v. Kremer, 307 Minn. 309, 312, 239 N.W.2d 476, 478 (1976); State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228, 237, 195 N.W.2d 435, 441 (1972). Further, it appears from the record that only a "cu......
-
State v. Carter
...United States v. Schwartz, 535 F.2d 160 (2d Cir.1976); United States v. Rollins, 522 F.2d 160 (2d Cir.1975); State v. Kremer, 307 Minn. 309, 239 N.W.2d 476 (1976); Writt v. State, Tex.Crim., 541 S.W.2d 424 (1976); 3 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure Law § 11.2(a) at 496 (1978). "[T]he failure to ......
-
City of Xenia v. Wallace
...United States v. Arboleda (C.A. 2, 1980), 633 F.2d 985; United States v. Hensel (C.A. 1, 1983), 699 F.2d 18, 41; State v. Kremer (1976), 307 Minn. 309, 239 N.W.2d 476; People v. Lyles (1985), 106 Ill.2d 373, 87 Ill.Dec. 934, 478 N.E.2d Moreover, Crim.R. 47 provides in part: "An application ......