State v. Luhm, A15–1356.
| Decision Date | 31 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. A15–1356.,A15–1356. |
| Citation | 880 N.W.2d 606 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Stuart Donald LUHM, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Lee W. Barry, Assistant County Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.
Joseph P. Tamburino, Caplan & Tamburino Law Firm, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.
Considered and decided by KIRK, Presiding Judge; JOHNSON, Judge; and JOHN P. Smith, Judge.
JOHNSON
, Judge.
Stuart Donald Luhm was convicted of various drug- and weapons-related offenses. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence that was found in his home, a condominium unit, based on a search warrant that was obtained after police officers entered a secured, multi-unit condominium building and used a drug-detection dog immediately outside the door of Luhm's unit. We conclude that the police officers' warrantless entry into the building was lawful because Luhm did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building and, alternatively, because the building's property-management company consented to the officers' warrantless entry. We also conclude that the dog sniff conducted immediately outside the door of Luhm's condominium unit was lawful because it was justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Therefore, we affirm.
In August 2014, Orono Police Officer Paul Hooper received a tip from a confidential informant that “Mindy” Steinmetz and her boyfriend, Luhm, were trafficking in large quantities of marijuana and recently had been robbed of approximately 25 pounds of marijuana and approximately $15,000 in cash. The informant provided Officer Hooper with a photograph of Steinmetz and Luhm, which had been obtained from facebook.com. Soon thereafter, Officer Hooper determined that Melinda Steinmetz and Luhm lived in a multi-unit condominium building in the city of Minnetonka. Officer Hooper conducted surveillance of the parking lot outside the building and saw vehicles registered to Steinmetz and Luhm there. Officer Hooper also learned that Steinmetz and Luhm had been arrested together in 2011 for fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance.
Officer Hooper requested that another law-enforcement officer use a drug-detection dog in the hallway outside the door of Steinmetz's and Luhm's condominium unit, which is on the third floor of a four-story building, which is part of a multi-building complex. Steinmetz rented the condominium unit from Luhm's mother, who owned the unit. The front door of the building customarily is locked. It appears from the record that no receptionist or guard is stationed at the front door. A visitor to the building customarily would gain entry by using a telephone system to contact a resident, who can remotely allow the visitor to enter by electronically unlocking the front door.
The Minnetonka Police Department had access to the interior of the condominium building because a key to the front door was stored inside a “Knox box” (a particular brand of locked keybox), which was attached to the wall in a foyer. All officers of the police department had a key to the locked keybox. The property-management company of the building previously had made the front-door key available to the police department.
On August 29, 2014, Officer Heather Olson went to the condominium building with Officer Mark Meyer and a trained drug-detection dog, Brio, who had been trained by Officer Meyer to detect controlled substances. Officer Olson and Officer Meyer used the front-door key that was inside the locked keybox, entered the building, and went to Steinmetz's and Luhm's condominium unit on the third floor. There are approximately ten other units on the third floor. Officer Meyer directed Brio to sniff immediately outside the door of Steinmetz's and Luhm's condominium unit. Brio alerted in a way that, based on the dog's training, indicated that controlled substances were inside the condominium unit.
Later that day, Officer Hooper submitted an application for a warrant to search Steinmetz's and Luhm's condominium unit. The application was based on the information previously provided by the confidential informant, the information concerning Steinmetz's and Luhm's arrest history, and the result of the dog sniff conducted immediately outside the door of Steinmetz's and Luhm's condominium unit. A district court judge approved the application and issued the warrant. On September 2, 2014, police officers searched the condominium unit. They found large quantities of marijuana, 93 oxycodone tablets, 7 firearms, and 2 bullet-resistant vests.
The state charged Luhm with five felony offenses: (1) being an ineligible person in possession of a firearm, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (2014)
; (2) third-degree controlled-substance crime, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.023, subd. 2(a)(3) (2014) ; (3) fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.025, subd. 1(b)(1) (2014) ; (4) another count of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 152.025, subd. 1 (b)(1); and (5) commission of a crime while possessing a bullet-resistant vest, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 609.486 (2014).
In March 2015, Luhm moved to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of the condominium unit. In a memorandum of law, he argued that the officers' warrantless entry into the condominium building was unlawful and that the dog sniff was not justified by probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The state argued that a dog sniff in a common hallway of a multi-unit residential building is not a search that implicates the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution or article I, section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution
. At a hearing on the motion, the state presented the testimony of Officer Hooper and Officer Olson. Luhm testified but did not call any additional witnesses. The district court denied the motion orally on the record. The district court reasoned that the police officers' warrantless entry was justified by the consent of the property-management company and that the dog sniff was justified by a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
In May 2015, the case was submitted in a stipulated-evidence court trial. See Minn. R.Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4
. The district court found Luhm guilty on all counts. The district court imposed concurrent prison sentences of 60 months on count 1, 60 months on count 2, and 17 months on count 5. Luhm appeals.
I. Did Officer Olson and Officer Meyer violate Luhm's right against unreasonable searches by entering the secured, multi-unit condominium building without a warrant?
II. Was the dog sniff conducted immediately outside the door of Luhm's condominium unit justified by information suggesting that Luhm was engaging in criminal activity?
Luhm argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence for two general reasons: first, that police officers unlawfully entered the secured, multi-unit condominium building without a warrant, and, second, that the dog sniff conducted immediately outside the door of his condominium unit was unlawful because it was not supported by probable cause of criminal activity. If Luhm were to prevail on either argument, the subsequent search warrant would be invalid, and the evidence found during the execution of the search warrant would be suppressed. Conversely, if the officers' warrantless entry and the dog sniff are valid, the search warrant also would be valid, and there would be no basis for suppressing the evidence found during the execution of the search warrant.
This court applies a clear-error standard of review to a district court's findings of fact concerning a motion to suppress evidence. State v. Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922, 927 (Minn.2006)
. If the underlying facts are not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard of review to a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn.2008).
Luhm argues that the district court erred by reasoning that Officer Olson's and Officer Meyer's warrantless entry into the secured, multi-unit condominium building was justified by consent, for three reasons. First, he contends that the property-management company did not have authority to consent to the officers' warrantless entry. Second, in the alternative, he contends that the property-management company exceeded the scope of its authority to consent by giving the officers an overly broad license to enter the condominium building. And third, he contends that the police officers' use of the key inside the locked keybox was not justified by an emergency.
In response, the state argues that the officers' warrantless entry is justified, for three reasons. First, the state contends that Luhm may not challenge the officers' warrantless entry because Luhm did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building. Second, the state contends that, even if Luhm had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common areas of the building, the property-management company consented to the entry. Third, the state contends that, even if the property-management company did not have actual authority to consent to the officers' warrantless entry, the property-management company had apparent authority to do so.
We first consider whether Luhm had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the common areas of the secured, multi-unit condominium building so as to challenge the officers' warrantless entry into the building.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV
. The Minnesota Constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kono
...door not accessed via common walkway and even his nearest neighbor would not pass near entrance to his unit), with State v. Luhm , 880 N.W.2d 606, 616–17 (Minn. App. 2016) (area immediately outside defendant's condominium unit did not constitute curtilage where access was by way of shared h......
-
United States v. Correa
...of a tenant’s door in an apartment hallway is not curtilage), aff’d , 874 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017).3 See , e.g. , State v. Luhm , 880 N.W.2d 606, 617–18 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016) (applying Dunn and finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common area of a secured, multi-unit condominiu......
-
State v. Edstrom
...v. Luhm , the court of appeals assessed whether a dog sniff in a hallway of a secured condominium building was a search. 880 N.W.2d 606, 609 (Minn. App. 2016). In reaching the conclusion that it was not, the court consulted the building rules and regulations in the record and noted that the......
-
State v. Edstrom
...v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987). The state argues that this court's decision in State v. Luhm , 880 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. App. 2016), is dispositive."[T]he area immediately surrounding and associated with the home—what our cases call the curtilage—[is] p......