State v. Sept
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-1572 |
| Parties | State of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Renaldo Valentino Sept, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Minnesota |
This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by Minn. R Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CR-20-5607
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and John Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant County Attorney, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)
Drake D. Metzger, Jasmin Quiggle, Metzger Law Firm, LLC Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Cochran Judge; and Cleary, Judge.
The state appeals the district court's pretrial order granting respondent's motion to suppress evidence seized during a vehicle search, arguing that the district court erred because investigators had probable cause to search the vehicle based on evidence discovered on respondent's person, following a lawful search incident to arrest, combined with respondent's diminished expectation of privacy as a parolee. We affirm.
Appellant State of Minnesota charged respondent Renaldo Valentino Sept with two counts of ineligible person in possession of a firearm or ammunition in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subds. 1(2), 2(b) (2020), and fifth-degree drug possession in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1) (2020). The charges are based on the evidence seized by investigators while executing a warrant for Sept's arrest for violating the terms of his parole.
On August 5, 2020, investigators were conducting surveillance of an apartment where they believed Sept was staying. Investigator Wilmes observed Sept entering the parking lot of the apartment complex in a red car. Sept then parked the car and walked into one of the apartments carrying a backpack. Some time passed before Sept exited the apartment with the backpack, walked back to the parked car, got inside, and started the engine. Investigators then surrounded Sept and ordered him to exit the car. Sept stepped out of the car and investigators handcuffed and searched him.
Search incident to arrest
Investigator Bliven searched Sept's person and found two sets of keys, [1] 2.2 grams of marijuana, and $1, 400. Sept was then placed in the back of a patrol car. The seized items "were placed into an evidence bag," and investigators returned the keys to Sept's then-girlfriend, S.K., who was inside the apartment Sept was seen entering just before his arrest.
Vehicle search
At some point after Sept was taken into custody, Investigator Pankratz noticed that Sept's car was still running. Investigator Pankratz then "opened up the car door to shut the vehicle off."
Investigator Pankratz "watched [Sept] being taken into custody" but he did not participate in the search of Sept's person, nor did he have knowledge of what was found during that search when he opened the car door. "When [Investigator Pankratz] opened the door to actually go inside" the car, he saw a pistol magazine sticking out of a backpack pocket located on the front passenger seat. Investigator Pankratz "stopped everything [he] was doing, backed out" of the car, and told Investigator Wilmes what he saw. Investigator Wilmes was not informed of "a possible handgun magazine inside the vehicle" until after the seized items were placed in the evidence bag.
According to Investigator Pankratz, the pistol magazine was visible from outside of the car through either the windshield or the driver's side window. However, none of the investigators saw the pistol magazine until after Investigator Pankratz opened the car door.
Warrant to search the vehicle
S.K., now in possession of the keys, went out to the parking lot to try and speak with Sept before he was taken away. S.K. testified that while she was speaking to Sept "through the window" of the patrol car an investigator asked her for the keys back so he could "go in[side] the vehicle." S.K. told investigators that they would need to show her a warrant to go inside the car. Investigator Wilmes then applied for a search warrant, based on the information reported earlier from Investigator Pankratz. Once investigators produced the search warrant, S.K. returned the keys. The subsequent search of the car uncovered a pistol, ammunition, and 177.6 grams of marijuana. After the search of the car was complete, investigators "left the car there but took the keys" with them. S.K. "had to go to the jail and pick the keys back up after [investigators] left."
Sept moved the district court to suppress the evidence found in his car. The district court granted Sept's motion. This appeal followed.
The state argues that the district court erred by granting Sept's suppression motion because the investigators had probable cause to search his car. "When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing the evidence." State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999). We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. State v. Ortega, 770 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009). As an initial matter, we address whether the suppression of the evidence has a critical impact on the state's case.
Critical impact
When the state challenges a pretrial order, it must first show that "the district court's alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial." Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04, subd. 2(2)(b). This court will reverse only if the state can "clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court's order will have a critical impact on the state's ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error." State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624, 630 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted). "We view critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial order absent such a showing." State v. Osorio, 891 N.W.2d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017) (quotation omitted). If the "lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution," the district court's order has critically impacted the state's case. State v. Kim, 398 N.W.2d 544, 551 (Minn. 1987).
The state argues that without the evidence seized from Sept's car, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Each of the alleged charges against Sept arise from the search of his car and evidence obtained during that search. Because no further evidence exists to support the charges alleged against Sept, the suppression of the evidence seized from Sept's car has a critical impact on the state's ability to prosecute. Next, we consider whether a search occurred when investigators opened the car door to turn off the engine.
Search and seizure
The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution protect against "unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I § 10. A warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 798-99 (Minn. 2012). "The state bears the burden of establishing the applicability of an exception [to the warrant requirement]." State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243, 250 (Minn. 2003). Evidence obtained during an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed. State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011). To determine whether the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated, we examine the specific police conduct at issue. State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173, 178 (Minn. 2007).
The district court determined that "[r]egardless of Investigator Pankratz's innocent intent to turn off the car engine, the act of opening the door and moving into the car constituted a search." The district court concluded that, because Sept had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his car's interior, the "entry into . . . Sept's private car, even to merely turn off the engine, constituted a search[, ]" requiring either "a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement."
We agree with the district court, and the state does not dispute that the investigator's opening of the car door was a search. Because investigators did not have a search warrant for Sept's car before entering the car, absent an exception to the warrant requirement, any evidence found inside the car must be suppressed. See Diede, 795 N.W.2d at 842. We now consider whether there was a valid exception to the warrant requirement that justified investigators' entry into the car.
The automobile exception
The state argues that investigators had probable cause to justify entry into Sept's car under the automobile exception based on the marijuana and large amount of cash found on Sept's person, combined with his status as a parolee. The district court determined that the automobile exception did not apply because "investigators lacked probable cause to search" prior to the entry into Sept's car.
In reviewing whether there existed a valid exception to the warrant requirement, appellate courts review the district court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. State v. Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670, 677 (Minn. 2015).
"When probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without a warrant." State v Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007). Under the automobile exception, the warrantless search of a vehicle includes any "closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or...
To continue reading
Request your trial