State v. Molnau

• Decision Date: 06 December 2017
• Docket Number: A16-0330
• Citation: 904 N.W.2d 449
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Tara Renaye MOLNAU, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

904 N.W.2d 449

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent,

v.Tara Renaye MOLNAU, Appellant.

A16-0330

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: December 6, 2017

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael Junge, McLeod County Attorney, Daniel R. Provencher, Assistant McLeod County Attorney, Glencoe, Minnesota, for respondent.

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Rochelle Winn, Assistant State Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Tara Reese Duginske, Special Assistant State Public Defender, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The question presented in this case is whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment when, during their execution of a warrant to search a home, they searched a purse that belonged to a guest at the home.The district court and court of appeals concluded that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.Because we conclude that the search was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, we affirm.

FACTS

In April 2015 law enforcement applied for a warrant to search the home of N.Z. because police believed N.Z. was selling methamphetamine out of his home.The warrant application sought permission to search the premises and N.Z. for drugs and evidence of drug trafficking.The warrant application also indicated that police believed that a woman, M.L.D., resided at the premises with N.Z., but the application did not provide any other information about M.L.D. or indicate that she was involved in drug trafficking.The district court issued a warrant authorizing the search of N.Z. and his home for methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and materials associated with drug trafficking.

When police arrived at N.Z.'s home to execute the warrant, they found appellant, Tara Molnau, sitting on a couch in the living room.Police searched the living room and found marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia.Police also searched the kitchen, where they found methamphetamine and "suspected hash oil."They also found a purse on the kitchen table.The purse contained 4.002 grams of methamphetamine and Molnau's identification card.

RespondentState of Minnesota charged Molnau with third-degree controlled-substance crime, Minn. Stat. § 152.023(2014), for possessing methamphetamine.Before trial, Molnau moved to suppress the methamphetamine found in her purse.She argued that the search violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, because as a visitor to N.Z.'s residence, the search of her purse was beyond the scope of the warrant.The district court denied Molnau's motion, concluding that irrespective of whether police knew the purse belonged to Molnau, "[t]he officers executing the search warrant could reasonably assume that the items listed in the search warrant could be concealed in a purse," and that because the purse was not in Molnau's possession, police could properly search it.

Molnau entered a plea of not guilty, waived her right to a jury trial and her other trial rights, and stipulated to the facts under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4.The parties agreed that the charge was based exclusively on the methamphetamine found in the purse.After a bench trial, the district court found Molnau guilty, stayed imposition of sentence, and placed Molnau on probation.

Molnau appealed the suppression issue, arguing that as a visitor not named in the warrant, she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her belongings, including her purse, even if they were not in her possession when the warrant was executed.The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Molnau's motion to suppress.State v. Molnau, No. A16-0330, 2016 WL 7337090, at *4(Minn. App.Dec. 19, 2016).We granted Molnau's petition for review.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Molnau argues that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the contents of her purse as the fruits of an unconstitutional search.When reviewing the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.State v. Ortega, 770 N.W.2d 145, 149(Minn.2009).The State bears the burden of proving that police obtained the challenged evidence in accord with the Constitution.State ex rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 141 N.W.2d 3, 13–14(1965).

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches ... shall not be violated."U.S. Const. amend. IV.¹In general, warrantless searches are unreasonable.Riley v. California, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2482, 189 L.Ed.2d 430(2014).Here, police had a warrant to search N.Z. and his residence, but they did not have a warrant to search Molnau.Accordingly, we must decide whether the search of Molnau's purse, which was not in her possession when police found and searched it, was nevertheless reasonable because it was within the scope of the warrant.

A search that exceeds the scope of a warrant is unconstitutional.Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 140, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112(1990).A warrant generally authorizes police to search all containers they reasonably believe could contain the items sought.United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820–21, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572(1982).A warrant, however, does not authorize the police to search the body and outer clothing of persons who are not named in the warrant.²SeeYbarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238(1979)(holding that a search warrant authorizing the search of a tavern and a bartender did not authorize police to search customers at the tavern when the warrant was executed);see alsoState v. Wynne, 552 N.W.2d 218, 220(Minn.1996)(recognizing that a purse carried by a person is protected from search under a premises warrant because it is an extension of the person).

In this case, the purse was not in Molnau's possession when police searched it, so the search did not involve a search of Molnau herself.SeeWynne, 552 N.W.2d at 220.But the search of her purse could still violate the Fourth Amendment if it was beyond the scope of the warrant.The State argues that the search of Molnau's purse was within the scope of the warrant because the purse was not in her possession and it was capable of hiding the narcotics for which police were authorized to search.For her part, Molnau argues that the warrant did not authorize the search of her purse because she was a mere guest at N.Z.'s home and her relationship with the home was too attenuated for her belongings to be searched under the warrant.

We have examined whether a search exceeds the scope of a warrant using a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.SeeState v. Thisius, 281 N.W.2d 645, 645–46(Minn.1978).The parties ask us to depart from that method of analysis in favor of tests that give dispositive weight to single factors.³We decline this invitation because "the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness."In re Welfare of M.L.M., 813 N.W.2d 26, 31(2012)(citation omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted).The determination of what is reasonable in a given situation is necessarily a fact-intensive inquiry best evaluated by considering all of the circumstances....