State v. Stockman

Decision Date12 January 2022
Docket Number20-1360
CourtIowa Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHELLE KATHERINE STOCKMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, Alan T Heavens, Judge.

The defendant appeals the denial of her motion to suppress. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., Badding, J., and Blane, S.J. [*]

BLANE SENIOR JUDGE.

Michelle Stockman appeals the denial of her motion to suppress evidence seized in three separate searches-one of her purse one of her vehicle, and one of her person when booked into jail following her arrest. The two initial searches were during execution of a federal search warrant obtained by federal agents from a federal magistrate judge and resulted in paraphernalia and methamphetamine being found by state law enforcement officers who were assisting. Upon our review, since the search warrant was issued by a federal court, we apply a Fourth Amendment and federal law analysis. We uphold the search and denial of Stockman's motion to suppress evidence.

I. Background facts and proceedings.

In early 2019, Stockman and Christopher Weigert were in a troubled relationship. In February, she obtained a no-contact order against him. Stockman also went to the Cresco police and provided information that Weigert, a convicted felon, had guns and that he supplied methamphetamine that they used at his residence as well as her's. Later that same month, a confidential informant contacted the Cresco police and advised Weigert had solicited him to either kill Stockman or find a hit man to do so. Weigert wished Stockman dead because he had been charged with methamphetamine crimes and blamed her. In his statement to police, the confidential informant advised he smoked methamphetamine with Weigert and saw Weigert in possession of firearms. Based on the nature of this information, Cresco police referred the matter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

An FBI agent used this information in a search warrant application to seek evidence of this pay-for-murder plan and other specific crimes.[1] The agent referred in the application to the confidential informant and an "ex-girlfriend," but not to Stockman by name. On March 18, 2019, a United States magistrate judge issued the federal search warrant, which authorized the FBI to search: "The residence and any person, vehicles, and outbuildings located at [the address], Cresco, Iowa, or the curtilage thereof . . . the person of Christopher Weigert, including a sample of his urine for further testing; and a 2005 Chevrolet 2500 pickup truck . . . ." (Emphasis added). And an attachment to the warrant stated there was probable cause to search and seize: "Any and all paraphernalia, instrumentalities, packaging, packing materials, substances, chemicals, controlled substances, or records which are evidence of illicit possession, acquisition, use, manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances." Cresco police officers did not assist in the preparation or presentation of the warrant application to the federal magistrate judge.

On March 20, federal agents assisted by Cresco police executed the search warrant at Weigert's residence. Weigert and Stockman were found together sleeping in bed in the master bedroom.[2] Weigert's school-aged daughter was also in the house. Federal agents found drugs in the master bedroom and the garage. Stockman's purse was also located in the master bedroom.[3] State officers were initially serving as perimeter security, but at FBI direction they assisted in searching Stockman's purse and her vehicle located in the residence driveway.

The Cresco police officer who assisted in the search testified at the suppression hearing that he believed he had authority to search Stockman's purse and vehicle because the search warrant authorized the search of "any person" or "vehicle" located at Weigert's residence, even though Stockman's name did not appear in either the search warrant or the application. The officer was aware that the "ex-girlfriend" referred to in the search warrant application was Stockman.[4]Stockman testified at the suppression hearing, but only as to the age of Weigert's daughter being eight or nine years and that she did not have or carry a purse. Stockman was not asked if the purse that was searched belonged to her. The State conceded there was no basis to believe the purse belonged to Christopher Weigert.

During the searches, the officers found drug paraphernalia and a package of methamphetamine in Stockman's purse and additional drug paraphernalia in her vehicle. Stockman was arrested and taken to the Howard County jail.[5] During her booking into jail, a search of her person uncovered a baggie of methamphetamine in her left boot. Federal authorities referred the matter to the Howard County Attorney for state prosecution.

On April 8, the county attorney filed a trial information against Stockman charging her with two counts of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) as a first offense based on the drugs found in her purse and in her boot. Stockman filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the searches.

Stockman's motion to suppress challenged the searches of her purse and vehicle because she was not the person named in the search warrant. She argued she had a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in her purse and vehicle. She further argued that the evidence found during the search of her person at the time of booking into jail should also be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree since her arrest was based on illegal searches that exceeded the search warrant. The motion contended a violation of her constitutional rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. In her motion, Stockman did not address that the search warrant had been issued by a federal court, primarily executed by federal agents, or if the Iowa Supreme Court decision in State v. Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884 (Iowa 2017), was applicable.

The State resisted Stockman's motion, arguing search warrants authorizing the search of "all persons" are not per se unreasonable but the requirements of such a warrant are stringent, citing State v. Prior, 617 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2000), and State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658 (Iowa 1995). Next, the State argued that Stockman did not establish her expectation of privacy as required under State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 557 (Iowa 2012). Finally, it argued the Iowa district court did not have the authority to invalidate a search warrant issued by a federal court, citing Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884.[6]

Following a hearing, the district court framed the issue as whether Stockman had "an expectation of privacy for a vehicle and purse found at a residence that she said that she uses illegal drugs at." The court's analysis was whether Stockman's position was similar to the Iowa Supreme Court's opinions in State v. Fleming, 790 N.W.2d 560 (Iowa 2010), [7] or State v. Brown, 905 N.W.2d 846 (Iowa 2018). The court then found that neither of these cases controlled as they were distinguishable on their facts because the application for the search warrant in the present case contained statements Stockman made to law enforcement that she used methamphetamine with Weigert at his residence. Specifically, the court found:

Also included was information from the ex-girlfriend that she had previously used methamphetamine with Weigert and that they last used methamphetamine together in late January 2019. . . . Michelle Stockman also told law enforcement that Weigert always supplied the drugs when they used together and "they would use drugs at Weigert's house as well as the ex-girlfriend's (Stockman's)."

Finding Stockman's statements to law enforcement included in the warrant application negated her expectation of privacy, the court denied her motion to suppress. The court did not address the State's contention regarding the federal warrant and Ramirez.

Stockman then waived a jury trial and stipulated to a bench trial on the minutes of evidence. The district court found Stockman guilty, sentenced her to forty days in jail with all but four days suspended, and assessed fines of $315 on each count with surcharge. She was placed on informal probation for one year and ordered to obtain a substance-abuse evaluation. Stockman timely appealed.

II. Standard of review.

As Stockman raises a constitutional challenge, we apply de novo review. State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 844 (Iowa 2019). "We examine the entire record and 'make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances.'" Id. (citation omitted). "In doing so, we evaluate each case 'in light of its unique circumstances.'" Id. (quoting State v. Kurth, 813 N.W.2d 270, 272 (Iowa 2012)). "An individual challenging the legality of a search has the burden of showing a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched." Fleming, 790 N.W.2d at 564. "We give deference to the district court's fact findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses, but we are not bound by those findings." State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001) (footnote omitted). In conducting our review, we observe that the burden is on the defendant who challenges a search conducted pursuant to a validly issued warrant. See Brown, 905 N.W.2d at 858 (Waterman, J., dissenting).

III. Discussion.

On appeal the State again urges that our state court has no authority to invalidate a search warrant issued by a ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT