State v. Rochefort, No. C2-00-148.

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: LANCASTER, Justice.
• Citation: 631 N.W.2d 802
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Rick Allen ROCHEFORT, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 19 July 2001
• Docket Number: No. C2-00-148.

631 N.W.2d 802

STATE of Minnesota, Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
Rick Allen ROCHEFORT, Respondent

No. C2-00-148.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 19, 2001.

631 N.W.2d 803

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Kelly O'Neill Moller, Asst. Attorney General, St. Paul, Brian Roverud, Faribault County Attorney, Blue Earth, MN, for appellant

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Marie Wolf, Asst. State Public Defender, Minneapolis, MN, for respondent.

Considered and decided by the court en banc without oral argument.

OPINION

LANCASTER, Justice.

We granted review in this case to address a narrow question: What is the correct standard of review for an appellate court examining a district court's probable cause determination made upon issuing a search warrant? The court of appeals reviewed the determination de novo. Because we conclude that the court of appeals erred in conducting a de novo review, we reverse and remand to that court for application of the correct, deferential standard of review.

On March 1, 1999, police executed a search warrant at respondent Rick Allen Rochefort's residence and seized methamphetamine and various items used in the production of methamphetamine. In fact, all the products (or empty containers of those products) necessary to manufacture methamphetamine were discovered in the house. Based on the evidence seized that day, Rochefort was charged with three counts of first-degree controlled substance crime for the manufacture, possession, and sale of methamphetamine. See Minn.Stat. § 152.021, subds. 1(1) (sale), 2(1) (possession), and 2a (manufacture) (2000).

Rochefort filed a pretrial motion to suppress all evidence seized during the March 1 search. Rochefort argued to the district court that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The court disagreed with Rochefort and denied his motion to suppress. After a three-day jury trial, Rochefort was found guilty of all three charges against him. He was sentenced to 98 months in prison.

Rochefort appealed his conviction to the court of appeals. He argued, among other things, that the affidavit submitted in support of the application for the search warrant did not provide a substantial basis for the issuing court's probable cause determination. More specifically, he argued that the affidavit relied on various informants without establishing their reliability, that the information in the warrant application was stale, and that the primary allegation the district court relied on in issuing the warrant—two purchases of iodine crystals, a precursor for the manufacture of methamphetamine—was not sufficient to find probable cause.

The court of appeals agreed with Rochefort that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. State v. Rochefort, 619 N.W.2d 564, 567 (Minn.App.2000). In reaching this conclusion, the court explained its standard of review as follows:

631 N.W.2d 804

The United States and the Minnesota constitutions provide that warrants must be supported by probable cause. See U.S. Const.Amend. IV; Minn. Const. Art. I, § 10; State v. Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782 (Minn.2000). Appellate courts give great deference to the factual findings of the court issuing a warrant and will reverse "only if clearly erroneous." Bradford, 618 N.W.2d 782 (citation omitted). An appellate court reviews a probable cause determination de novo and analyzes whether "there was a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed." Id. (citation omitted).

A search warrant may be issued if, based on the totality of the circumstances, "there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit under the totality of the circumstances test, courts must be careful to avoid

...