State v. Severtson
| Decision Date | 11 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 45474,45474 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Ricky SEVERTSON, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
When police officers, while lawfully executing a search warrant, have probable cause to believe that certain papers in 'plain view' are immediately recognizable as evidence connecting defendant with the controlled substances, such papers are admissible as within the scope of the search warrant, even though they were not particularly described therein.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., Peter W. Sipkins, Sol. Gen., Richard B. Allyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gary P. Hanson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Robert Tuveson, County Atty., Albert Lea, for appellant.
John O. Goodmanson, Albert Lea, for respondent.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.
This is an appeal by the state pursuant to Minn.St. 632.11 from a pretrial order of the district court suppressing certain personal papers of defendant which the state contends are necessary to establish defendant's guilt of two counts of constructive possession of controlled substances in violation of Minn.St. 152.09, subd. 1(2), and 152.15, subd. 2(2). The issue raised by the state is whether a seizure by police of papers not described in the search warrant is violative of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. In reversing the suppression order, we hold that such a seizure was proper as not violative of the guarantees enumerated in the Fourth Amendment.
At about 11:30 p.m. on the evening of May 6, 1974, Greg Sickler, an undercover agent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (B.C.A.) went to the Dennis LaCore farm north of Albert Lea for the purpose of purchasing marijuana from LaCore pursuant to an earlier agreement. Upon completion of the purchase, Sickler and other law-enforcement officials who converged on the scene arrested LaCore, as well as his companion, James Modderman. Since the sale occurred outside, the officers could not, incident to the arrest, search the farmhouse or any of the farm buildings for more drugs. They therefore decided to secure the situation while a deputy sheriff went to town and obtained a warrant.
The deputy stated in the application for the warrant and its accompanying affidavit that an agent for the B.C.A. had personally seen marijuana in the cupboards in the kitchen and that he had also seen LaCore obtaining marijuana from an outbuilding on the premises. The deputy requested permission to search the farmhouse and the outbuildings for marijuana and its derivatives, together with equipment used in the cure, storage, refinement, manufacture, or other preparation of marijuana. The warrant issued gave the deputy the exact authority he sought.
Upon the return of the duputy with the warrant, the officers proceeded to conduct their search of the entire LaCore farmhouse, as well as all outbuildings. One of the rooms searched was a bedroom. As the officers were searching this room, but before they had discovered anything, one officer, without giving a Miranda warning, asked defendant Ricky Severtson, who was standing in the room, whether the room was his or if he was residing at the farmhouse. Defendant answered that it was his room and that he had been residing at the farmhouse for about 2 weeks. He also said that a jacket in the room and a satchel on the bed were his property.
In a bureau drawer in the bedroom, an officer found a clear plastic box containing numerous pills, including Darvon and codeine. Mixed in with the items in the drawer were numerous papers and letters bearing defendant's name. The officers seized these for use in proving defendant's constructive possession of the pills.
The trial court, after a pretrial Rasmussen hearing, issued an order denying defendant's motion to suppress the pills and the statements defendant made in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeWald
...apparent. Id. (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2037, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Severtson, 304 Minn. 487, 232 N.W.2d 95 (1975)). In order to seize items in plain view, officers must have probable cause to believe the property is subject to seizure. "......
-
State ex rel. White v. Melton
...782 (1967); State v. Hamilton, Iowa, 236 N.W.2d 325 (1975); Crawford v. State, 9 Md.App. 624, 267 A.2d 317 (1970); State v. Severtson, 304 Minn. 487, 232 N.W.2d 95 (1975), all requiring a nexus between criminal activity and additional property The state has no right to take or retain that m......
-
People v. Secrest, Docket No. 66006
...United States v. Gray, 484 F.2d 352, 355 (CA 6, 1973); United States v. Truitt, 521 F.2d 1174 (CA 6, 1975).8 State v. Severtson, 304 Minn. 487, 490, 232 N.W.2d 95 (1975).9 State v. Hamilton, 236 N.W.2d 325, 329 (Iowa, 1975), quoting from Bell v. State, 482 P.2d 854, 860 (Alaska, 1971).10 St......
-
State v. Streitz
...objects reasonably believed to be stolen "would serve no other purpose than that of unnecessary formalism." State v. Severtson, 304 Minn. 487, 490, 232 N.W.2d 95, 97 (1975). The officers had probable cause to believe the property stolen. Defendant was believed to be part of a burglary ring ......