State v. Sorensen

• Decision Date: 08 March 2023
• Docket Number: 22-0780
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TANNER ALAN SORENSEN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TANNER ALAN SORENSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-0780

Court of Appeals of Iowa

March 8, 2023

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Patrice Eichman, District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and subsequent conviction. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judith O'Donohoe of Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun, White, LLP Charles City, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.

GREER Judge.

Following a trial on the minutes and conviction for possession of a controlled substance, second offense (methamphetamine) Tanner Sorensen appeals the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the evidence collected against him was found while officers were illegally in his home or using a search warrant obtained based on their findings during the initial illegal entrance. Because officers wrongfully entered Sorensen's home by not complying with the last step of Iowa Code section 804.15 (2020), the evidence they collected in their subsequent movement around the home and later search warrant should have been suppressed. As such, we reverse the district court's denial of the motion to suppress and Sorensen's conviction; we remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Facts and Procedural History.

Stemming from items recovered by troopers while executing an arrest warrant and a subsequent search warrant on Sorensen on February 1, 2020, Sorensen was charged with new crimes, including possession of a controlled substance, second offense (methamphetamine). Sorensen moved to suppress evidence found while the troopers were inside his home during the initial execution of the arrest warrant and the evidence found during the subsequent search pursuant to a search warrant.

At the suppression hearing, testimony established that on the morning of February 1, 2020, Iowa State Troopers Jordan Barnes and Macabe Schmidt arrived at Sorensen's home to execute an arrest warrant. Sorensen's friend Dayton Reicks arrived at the home about the same time. Reicks and Trooper Barnes both walked up to the front door while Trooper Macabe walked behind the home. Reicks confirmed he was there to see Sorensen, and Trooper Barnes testified he knocked and stated "something along the lines of state patrol or police."^[1] When they did not get an answer at the door after no more than thirty seconds,^[2] Reicks opened the door and went inside; Sorensen was visible just inside the door so Trooper Barnes was able to see Sorensen and confirmed his identity.

Trooper Barnes testified at the suppression hearing that, right upon seeing Sorensen, he asked him if he was Tanner and "immediately" told him why he was there^[3]-to serve a warrant for Sorensen's arrest. According to Trooper Barnes, he then told Sorensen, who was only partially dressed, that he could get dressed before going to jail. Sorensen walked toward the back of the house, and Trooper Barnes followed him to make sure Sorensen did not retrieve a weapon. As they moved through the house, Trooper Barnes saw Sorensen grab something from the kitchen table.^[4] Laid out on that same kitchen table, Trooper Barnes saw-without needing to move anything-a torch lighter, containers he knew were commonly used to hold tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) wax, wax paper with THC wax on it, and metal picks.^[5] There was also a trunk on the table that held a glass pipe, more wax residue, and a razor blade. Trooper Barnes asked Sorensen what he had grabbed-eventually, Sorensen produced a glass bong and more containers of THC wax.

Sorensen told a different account. He testified he was asleep when the troopers arrived at his home and did not wake up to the doorbell, but to his dogs. When he came into the living room, he found Reicks holding his dogs and an officer holding the door open while the other stepped inside. No one told him he was under arrest at that point. During Sorensen's testimony at the suppression hearing, he said, "All I recall is they said they needed to speak with me and I asked them if I could get some clothes." He was given no warning the officers would follow him. He walked through the kitchen to go to the basement and retrieve clothes from the laundry room. On his way, he grabbed the bong and two containers of wax off of the kitchen table and hid them, leaving only the torch lighter on the table. When he came upstairs, the officer following him told him about the arrest warrant and asked him what he had hidden. Eventually, Sorensen produced the bong and wax. Trooper Barnes placed Sorensen in handcuffs and read his Miranda rights,^[6] then took Sorensen to jail for the original warrant. Trooper Barnes successfully applied for a search warrant and returned to the home to execute the search. In the meantime, another trooper remained in the home's living room with Sorensen's girlfriend.

Trooper Barnes's application for the search warrant outlined what he saw on the kitchen table, including a torch lighter, the containers used for wax, THC wax on wax paper, the picks, and the case holding a glass pipe, wax residue, and a razor blade. It also mentioned the bong and additional containers that Sorensen hid and later produced. The subsequent search revealed a number of pills, two of which were determined to be methamphetamine, and a third pill determined to be buspirone, a prescription drug.

The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Sorensen agreed to a trial on the minutes for the charge of possession of a controlled substance, second offense (methamphetamine). The district court convicted Sorensen of the charge.

Sorensen now appeals the district court's ruling on the motion to suppress.

II. Discussion.

Sorensen argues (1) Trooper Barnes did not comply with Iowa Code sections 804.14 and 804.15, violating his state and federal constitutional rights by entering and following him through his home; (2) Trooper Barnes interrogated him before informing him of his Miranda rights; and (3) the search warrant obtained based on evidence found through the unconstitutional invasion of his home and interrogation was illegally issued and executed.

We review the denial of a motion to suppress based on constitutional protections de novo. State v. Hague, 973 N.W.2d 453, 458 (Iowa 2022). "We review the entire record to independently evaluate the totality of the circumstances and examine each case 'in light of its unique circumstances.'" Id. (citation omitted). "We give deference to the district court's fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses, but we are not bound by those findings." State v. Brown, 890 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). Insofar as Sorensen's motion to suppress is based on a statute, our review is for correction of legal error. See State v. Casper, 951 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Iowa 2020).

"[Law enforcement] intrusion into the home implicates the very core of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution." State v. Wilson, 968 N.W.2d 903, 911 (Iowa 2022). "Possession of an arrest warrant alone is constitutionally sufficient for entry into a suspect's own residence to effect his arrest." State v. Luloff, 325 N.W.2d 103, 105 (Iowa 1982); see also Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603 (1980) ("Thus, for Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe the suspect is within."). But, common law has long recognized that "law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door," and this protection is further protected by the Fourth Amendment. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 589 (2006); see also Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934 (1995) (holding that the "common law principle of announcement" is "an element of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment," though there are exceptions that would ameliorate the requirement). Courts have recognized the purpose of the "knock-and-announce rule"-codified in Iowa in section 804.15-is to protect "human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self- defense by the surprised resident"; "give[] individuals 'the opportunity to comply with the law and to avoid the destruction of property occasioned by a forcible entry'"; and protect the resident's dignity by providing them a chance "'to prepare themselves for' the entry of [law enforcement]." Hudson, 547 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted); see also State v. Pranschke, No. 16-1104, 2017 WL 2461556, at *6 n.5 (Iowa Ct. App. June 7, 2017) (citing the reasons outlined in Hudson).

But here, because of Reicks's entry, Trooper Barnes found the door open and Sorensen just a few feet away from the threshold. No one disputes that there was an active warrant issued for Sorensen's arrest or that Troopers Barnes and Schmidt had reasonable cause to believe Sorensen was in the house. And even accepting Trooper Barnes's account, as the district court determined was the more credible version of events, there was no proof that Trooper Barnes demanded admittance to the home to make the arrest-instead, he simply walked crossed the threshold. At the suppression hearing, when discussing his entrance, the following exchange occurred:

Q. But it doesn't sound like in your testimony you demanded permission to enter the residence. It sounds like you were in the residence by the time Mr. Sorensen was coming toward the door.

A. I never stepped foot inside the

...