State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter ( 2016 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A15-0449
State of Minnesota,
Respondent,
vs.
Vernon David Matter,
Appellant.
Filed February 16, 2016
Reversed
Johnson, Judge
Dissenting, Connolly, Judge
Renville County District Court
File No. 65-CR-14-163
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Matthew Frank, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and
David J. Torgelson, Renville County Attorney, Olivia, Minnesota (for respondent)
Scott Cody, Tarshish Cody, PLC, Richfield, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge. ∗
∗
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment
pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
Vernon David Matter was convicted of possessing a controlled substance and
possessing a short-barreled shotgun. The incriminating evidence was found in a search of
Matter’s farm, which was conducted pursuant to a search warrant. The search warrant
was based on information that a deputy sheriff obtained while conducting a protective-
sweep search of Matter’s farm on a prior occasion. On appeal, Matter argues that the
search warrant is invalid because the deputy sheriff exceeded the proper scope of a
protective sweep during the prior search. We agree with Matter that the deputy sheriff
exceeded the proper scope of a protective sweep by initiating an investigation that was
unrelated to the purposes of the protective sweep. Accordingly, the district court erred by
denying Matter’s motion to suppress evidence. Therefore, we reverse.
FACTS
This appeal arises from a traffic stop on a country road, which evolved into a tense
struggle involving multiple persons and multiple officers at a farm, which gave rise to a
subsequent investigation into a rifle that was present at the farm, which led to the
discovery of physical evidence that Matter committed the offenses of which he was
charged and convicted.
On April 23, 2014, at approximately 8:40 p.m., Renville County Deputy Sheriff
Jeff Nelson was observing traffic in a stationary unmarked car on 870th Avenue, a gravel
road in a rural part of the county. He observed a vehicle fail to signal a turn onto
southbound highway 4. As he followed the vehicle, he also observed the vehicle cross
2
the center line four times and the fog line once. He radioed for a marked squad car to
stop the vehicle and investigate.
Renville County Sergeant Douglas Best heard Deputy Nelson’s request, observed
the vehicle traveling south on highway 4, and followed it. He initiated a traffic stop after
the vehicle turned east on county road 23. The vehicle did not stop immediately but
continued slowly to a driveway on the south side of county road 23, turned into the
driveway, and eventually stopped in a farmyard with a farmhouse and multiple
outbuildings.
Sergeant Best parked his squad car behind the vehicle. He approached the
passenger side of the vehicle and spoke with the front-seat passenger, who identified
himself as Juan Bautista. Sergeant Best believed that Bautista was concealing something
in his hand and asked him to step out of the vehicle. As Bautista did so, he dropped an
item that Sergeant Best recognized as drug paraphernalia. Bautista then fled on foot.
Sergeant Best ran after him and followed him into the farmhouse, which led to a physical
struggle. Sergeant Best was able to subdue Bautista only after two other officers,
Renville County Chief Deputy Sheriff Doug Pomplun and Renville County Deputy
Sheriff Tom Swyter, arrived and provided assistance.
Meanwhile, Deputy Nelson, who had arrived at the scene shortly after Sergeant
Best, was engaged in an encounter with another man, who later was identified as Matter.
Matter walked toward the stopped vehicle while waving a revolver in his right hand and
yelling at the officers to get off his property. Deputy Nelson aimed his service weapon at
Matter and ordered him to drop the revolver. Matter lowered it but did not drop it.
3
Deputy Nelson ordered Matter to lie on the ground, but Matter did not do so. Deputy
Nelson attempted to subdue Matter with a Taser but was unsuccessful. Deputy Nelson
attempted to physically restrain Matter, which led to a struggle in which Matter elbowed
Deputy Nelson in the chest and head. Deputy Nelson eventually subdued Matter with
mace and took away his revolver.
After Bautista and Matter were arrested, Sergeant Best said to the other officers
that, when he first arrived at the farm, he observed a man named Rey Guerrero standing
in the farmyard, near a barn. Sergeant Best was familiar with Rey Guerrero because their
children attended the same school. Rey Guerrero is the brother of Alejandro Guerrero,
who was the driver of the vehicle that was pulled over. Sergeant Best noticed that Rey
Guerrero had not been detained and asked the officers to search the farm in an attempt to
find him. Sergeant Best later testified that the purpose of the search for Rey Guerrero was
to ensure the safety of the officers on the scene.
The farmyard area was estimated by one officer to be approximately five to eight
acres in area. During the search for Rey Guerrero, Deputy Pomplun saw a large shed on
the east side of the property, approximately 100 feet from the barn. The shed was open,
and lights were on inside. Deputy Pomplun entered the shed and quickly determined that
no other person was in the shed. But he observed a rifle lying on a couch inside the shed.
He walked over to the couch, picked up the rifle, and removed the ammunition. Before
setting the rifle down, he looked at the serial number on the rifle. While holding the rifle
in one hand, he used his other hand to place a call on his portable radio to his dispatcher
and read the serial number to the dispatcher. Deputy Pomplun later testified that he did
4
so “to find out if it was stolen.” The dispatcher referred to a database and informed
Deputy Pomplun that the rifle had not been reported stolen. When he exited the shed,
Deputy Pomplun left the rifle on the couch. He also left the ammunition on the couch,
which he testified was an “oversight.”
The officers did not find Rey Guerrero on the farm that evening. Alejandro
Guerrero was arrested for driving while impaired and possession of a controlled
substance. Bautista was arrested for assault of a police officer, fleeing a police officer,
and possession of a controlled substance. Matter was arrested for assault with a
dangerous weapon, assault of a police officer, possession of drug paraphernalia,
disorderly conduct, and obstructing legal process. Another passenger of the stopped
vehicle was released without being cited. The record in this case does not reveal whether
Alejandro Guerrero or Bautista were prosecuted for their conduct at the farm that
evening.
The following day, Deputy Pomplun decided to conduct further investigation into
the rifle that he had found in the shed at Matter’s farm. He entered the model and serial
number of the rifle into a federal database in an attempt to learn where the rifle had been
purchased. He later received a report indicating that the registered owner of the rifle was
D.G., a resident of Sibley County. Deputy Pomplun attempted to contact D.G. but was
unsuccessful. He contacted the Sibley County sheriff’s office and was informed that
D.G. had passed away but that his daughter had reported that firearms had been stolen
from her father’s empty home after his death.
5
Renville County Investigator Tom Hendrichs obtained additional information
about the items that had been stolen from D.G.’s home. Investigator Hendrichs prepared
an application for a warrant to search Matter’s farm for those items, which included,
among other things, four firearms, a computer monitor, a personal computer, and a video
camera. On May 29, 2014, the application was submitted to a judge, who approved it.
On the same day, deputy sheriffs executed the warrant by searching Matter’s farm. They
found the rifle that Deputy Pomplun had seen and handled on April 23 but did not find
the other items identified in the warrant. But the officers came across a substance that
field testing revealed to be more than 200 grams of methamphetamine. The officers then
obtained a second search warrant, which authorized a search of Matter’s farm for
evidence of controlled substances. The execution of the second search warrant led to the
discovery of controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, a scale, approximately $11,500 in
cash, and a short-barreled shotgun whose serial number had been obliterated.
On June 2, 2014, the state charged Matter with four offenses based on the
evidence found at his farm on May 29, 2014: (1) first-degree controlled substance crime,
in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 2(a)(1) (2012); (2) possession of stolen
property, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.53, subd. 1 (2012); (3) possession of a firearm
with an altered serial number, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.667(2) (2012); and
(4) possession of a short-barreled shotgun, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.67, subd. 2
(2012).
In July 2014, Matter moved to suppress the evidence found in the searches of his
farm on May 29, 2014. In August 2014, the district court conducted an evidentiary
6
hearing on the motion. The state called three witnesses: Investigator Hendrichs, Deputy
Pomplun, and Sergeant Best. Matter called one witness, a law-enforcement officer who
participated in the search for Rey Guerrero. In a post-hearing memorandum, Matter
argued that all evidence obtained in executing the search warrants should be suppressed
for two reasons: first, that police officers on April 23, 2014, lacked a reasonable,
articulable suspicion that Rey Guerrero was in the east shed and posed a threat to the
officers and, second, that Deputy Pomplun exceeded the proper scope of the protective-
sweep search. In September 2014, the district court issued an order in which it denied the
motion to suppress. The district court reasoned that Deputy Pomplun’s search of the shed
on April 23, 2014, was conducted as part of a lawful protective sweep, that the rifle was
in plain view, and that Deputy Pomplun was justified in removing ammunition from the
rifle as a means of promoting officer safety.
In December 2014, the parties agreed to a stipulated-evidence court trial. See
Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4. In January 2015, the district court found Matter guilty
on counts 1, 3, and 4, and not guilty on count 2. In March 2015, the district court
imposed concurrent prison sentences of 84 months on count 1 (possession of a controlled
substance) and 15 months on count 4 (possession of a short-barreled shotgun). Matter
appeals.
DECISION
Matter argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress
evidence. He first contends that Deputy Pomplun’s warrantless entry into the shed is not
justified by the protective-sweep doctrine or any other exception to the Fourth
7
Amendment. He also contends, in the alternative, that if Deputy Pomplun’s warrantless
entry into the shed is justified by the protective-sweep doctrine, the officer later exceeded
the proper scope of a valid protective sweep by calling the dispatcher to report the serial
number of the rifle. The parties agree that Matter’s conviction is based on evidence
obtained because of the execution of the search warrants on May 29, 2014; that the search
warrants were obtained based on information concerning the rifle that Deputy Pomplun
had found in the shed on April 23, 2014; and that the information concerning the rifle
was obtained because of Deputy Pomplun’s warrantless entry into the shed and his report
to the dispatcher of the serial number of the rifle. If the underlying facts are not in
dispute, this court applies a de novo standard of review to a district court’s denial of a
motion to suppress evidence. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures” and states that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Minn. Const.
art. I, § 10. If an application for a search warrant contains information that was obtained
in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the search warrant is invalid, and evidence
gathered in the execution of the search warrant must be suppressed. See Murray v.
United States, 487 U.S. 533, 537-42, 108 S. Ct. 2529, 2533-36 (1988); State v. McClain,
862 N.W.2d 717, 727 (Minn. App. 2015).
8
The state argues that Deputy Pomplun’s warrantless entry into the shed and his
calling the dispatcher to report the serial number of the rifle are justified by the
protective-sweep doctrine. “A ‘protective sweep’ is a quick and limited search of
premises, incident to an arrest and conducted to protect the safety of police officers or
others,” which is “narrowly confined to a cursory visual inspection of those places in
which a person might be hiding.” Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327, 110 S. Ct. 1093,
1094 (1990). As “an incident to arrest,” a law-enforcement officer may, “as a
precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets
and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be
immediately launched.” Id. at 334, 110 S. Ct. at 1098. In addition, a protective sweep
may be conducted in areas beyond the spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest,
so long as there are “articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences
from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to
be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Id. A
protective sweep is “not a full search of the premises” but, rather, “may extend only to a
cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found” and may “last[] no
longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in any event no
longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.” Id. at 335-36, 110 S.
Ct. at 1099; see also State v. Bergerson, 671 N.W.2d 197, 202-03 (Minn. App. 2003),
review denied (Minn. Jan. 20, 2004).
9
A.
We first consider Matter’s first argument, that Deputy Pomplun’s warrantless
entry into the shed is not justified by the protective-sweep doctrine, for two reasons: first,
because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Rey Guerrero was in the shed
and, second, because the officers did not have reasonable suspicion that Rey Guerrero
posed a danger to the officers.
With respect to Matter’s first asserted reason why Deputy Pomplun’s warrantless
entry into the shed was improper, the district court focused primarily on the question
whether the protective-sweep doctrine could justify a warrantless search of an area that is
distant from the place of arrest. The district court resolved that question by reasoning
that the shed was not excessively distant from the place where Sergeant Best saw Rey
Guerrero and not excessively distant from the place where the vehicle had been stopped
and where Matter had been arrested. On appeal, Matter does not challenge the elasticity
of the protective-sweep doctrine by arguing that a protective sweep never may be
performed throughout a property of the size of Matter’s farmyard. Rather, he accepts the
premise that officer safety may be endangered by a person lurking somewhere in a large
area. See United States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938, 944-45 (8th Cir. 2006) (approving
protective sweep of barn following arrest of person in farmhouse); see also United States
v. Colbert, 76 F.3d 773, 776-77 (6th Cir. 1996) (holding that protective-sweep doctrine
may extend to inside of building even if person is arrested outside). Matter contends
more particularly that neither Deputy Pomplun nor any other officer had a reasonable
suspicion that Rey Guerrero was inside the shed.
10
The district court recognized that several officers were looking for Rey Guerrero
throughout Matter’s farmyard because they had reason to believe that he likely was
present somewhere on the farm. The evidence in the record supports that belief.
Accordingly, Deputy Pomplun was justified in looking in places on the farm property
where Rey Guerrero might be hiding. In particular, Deputy Pomplun could reasonably
believe that Rey Guerrero was in the shed because the shed was open and the inside lights
were on. Thus, Deputy Pomplun had a reasonable suspicion that Rey Guerrero might be
present in the shed.
With respect to Matter’s second asserted reason why Deputy Pomplun’s
warrantless entry into the shed was improper, the district court determined that the
officers had reason to believe that Rey Guerrero might pose a danger to them. The
district court acknowledged that Rey Guerrero had not made any threatening gestures but
reasoned that it was “not unreasonable to infer that individuals on the defendant’s
property would be sympathetic to the individuals being detained and arrested by the
officers,” especially in light of the fact that Rey Guerrero is a brother of Alejandro
Guerrero, the driver of the stopped vehicle. We agree with the district court. In light of
the hostility and physical resistance that other persons on the property had displayed, the
officers were justified in believing that another person, who had been present on the
property but was unaccounted for, who was related to a person who had been stopped and
was subject to investigation, might be lurking nearby with the intention of attacking the
officers. In addition, the officers were especially vulnerable because they were
unexpectedly present at a relatively large, unfamiliar place, after sunset. Thus, the
11
officers had a reasonable suspicion that Rey Guerrero posed a threat to the officers’
safety.
Therefore, the district court did not err by determining that Deputy Pomplun’s
warrantless entry into the shed is justified by the protective-sweep doctrine.
B.
We next consider Matter’s alternative argument, that even if Deputy Pomplun’s
warrantless entry into the shed is justified by the protective-sweep doctrine, he exceeded
the proper scope of a valid protective sweep by “lingering to call in the rifle’s serial
number.” On appeal, Matter does not challenge Deputy Pomplun’s decision to remove
the ammunition from the rifle, as he argued to the district court. He argues only that
Deputy Pomplun went too far by calling the dispatcher and reporting the serial number of
the rifle while the protective-sweep search was ongoing.
Our analysis of Matter’s argument is based on the United States Supreme Court’s
articulation of the purpose of a protective sweep. To reiterate, the Court stated in Buie
that a protective sweep is “a quick and limited search of premises,” which is “conducted
to protect the safety of police officers or others.” 494 U.S. at 327, 110 S. Ct. at 1094.
The Supreme Court emphasized that a protective sweep is “not a full search of the
premises” but, rather, is limited spatially to “a cursory inspection of those spaces where a
person may be found” and is limited temporally to a time period that is “no longer than is
necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.” Id. at 335-36, 110 S. Ct. at 1099.
The evidence in the record demonstrates that Deputy Pomplun went beyond the
proper scope of a valid protective sweep when he called the dispatcher, reported the serial
12
number of the rifle, and waited for the dispatcher to refer to a database and report back
that the rifle had not been reported as stolen. Those actions did not serve the purpose of
“protect[ing] the safety of police officers or others.” See id. at 327, 110 S. Ct. at 1094.
In fact, Deputy Pomplun testified at the omnibus hearing that he called the serial number
into the dispatcher “to find out if it was stolen.” Whether the rifle had been stolen had no
bearing on the safety of the officers and other persons who were present at the farm at
that time. A stolen rifle would pose no more danger than a rifle that had not been stolen.
Whether the rifle had been stolen was relevant only to Deputy Pomplun’s suspicion of
other criminal activity. Indeed, Deputy Pomplun followed up on that suspicion the next
day by taking steps to determine whether the rifle had been stolen. The subsequent
investigation was possible only because Deputy Pomplun had commenced the
investigation while he was in the shed by calling the dispatcher, reporting the serial
number of the rifle, and waiting for the dispatcher to give him more information. But
Deputy Pomplun was inside the shed only for the limited purpose of protecting the safety
of the officers who were investigating and making arrests at Matter’s farm.
The state makes two counterarguments. First, the state argues that Deputy
Pomplun’s call to the dispatcher did not extend the duration of the protective sweep. As
a factual matter, there is no evidence in the record as to how much time was required for
Deputy Pomplun to call the dispatcher, report the serial number of the rifle, and wait for
the dispatcher to refer to a database and report back that the rifle had not been reported
stolen. There also is no evidence in the record as to when the other officers completed
their parts of the protective sweep. But those factual matters are not material. In Buie,
13
the Supreme Court made clear that a protective sweep may last “no longer than is
necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.” Id. at 335-36, 110 S. Ct. at 1099.
The federal caselaw indicates that an action that is very short in duration may go beyond
the proper scope of a valid protective sweep. For example, in United States v. Ford, 56
F.3d 265 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the court concluded that officers who arrested a suspect near
his bedroom exceeded the proper scope of a valid protective sweep by lifting a mattress
to look underneath and by looking behind window shades. Id. at 270. Similarly, in
Cuevas v. De Roco, 531 F.3d 726 (9th Cir. 2008), the court concluded that officers who
arrested a suspect in his home exceeded the proper scope of a valid protective sweep by
opening a drawer. Id. at 735.
Our resolution of the parties’ contentions concerning the proper scope of a
protective-sweep search does not hinge on the applicability of the plain-view doctrine.
Matter does not contend that the plain-view doctrine does not apply. The key question is,
assuming all requirements of the plain-view doctrine are satisfied, whether Deputy
Pomplun’s actions also satisfy the requirements of the protective-sweep doctrine, which
is the justification for his warrantless entry into the shed. In Horton v. California, 496
U.S. 128, 110 S. Ct. 2301 (1990), a plain-view case, the Supreme Court cited Buie, the
seminal protective-sweep case, in stating that “a warrantless search [must] be
circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation,” id. at 139-40, 110 S. Ct. at
2309 (citing, as example, Buie, 494 U.S. at 332-34, 110 S. Ct. at 1098-99), and that
“[s]crupulous adherence to [the] requirements” of the doctrine that justifies a warrantless
search “serves the interests in limiting the area and duration of the search,” id. at 140, 110
14
S. Ct. at 2309. This statement implies that a warrantless search that is justified by the
protective-sweep doctrine must, at all times, be limited to the scope of a proper protective
sweep, even if an incriminating item in plain view might, in other circumstances, warrant
further investigation.
Second, the state argues that Deputy Pomplun did not conduct a “search,” for
Fourth Amendment purposes, by calling the dispatcher, reporting the serial number of the
rifle, and waiting for the dispatcher to refer to a database and inform him of the result.
The state’s argument is inconsistent with Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S. Ct. 1149
(1987), in which a police officer entered a residence without a warrant to investigate a
shooting and, while inside the residence, picked up and moved some stereo components,
read serial numbers that were not visible before the stereo components were moved, and
reported the serial numbers by telephone to police headquarters. Id. at 323-24, 107 S. Ct.
at 1152. The Supreme Court reasoned that “taking action, unrelated to the objectives of
the authorized intrusion, which exposed to view concealed portions of the apartment or
its contents, did produce a new invasion of [Hicks’s] privacy unjustified by the exigent
circumstance that validated the entry.” Id. at 325, 107 S. Ct. at 1152. The Supreme
Court referred to this part of Hicks in Buie, the seminal case concerning protective
sweeps. The Court noted in Buie that the officer in Hicks “was searching for evidence
plain and simple” and that “[t]here was no interest in officer safety or other exigency at
work in that search.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 335 n.3, 110 S. Ct. at 1099 n.3 (discussing Hicks,
480 U.S. at 325, 328, 107 S. Ct. at 1153, 1154). The Supreme Court reiterated that
protective-sweep searches “are permissible on less than probable cause only because they
15
are limited to that which is necessary to protect the safety of officers and others.” Buie,
494 U.S. at 335 n.3, 110 S. Ct. at 1099 n.3.
In this case, Deputy Pomplun testified that he reported the serial number to the
dispatcher after he picked up the rifle and that he was unable to read the serial number
before he picked up the rifle. Thus, Deputy Pomplun conducted a search for Fourth
Amendment purposes when he picked up the rifle and read the serial number, which he
would not have been able to read if he had not picked it up. In any event, even if Deputy
Pomplun did not conduct a search for Fourth Amendment purposes when he picked up
the rifle and read the serial numbers, the state’s reliance on Hicks would not justify
Deputy Pomplun’s next action: calling the dispatcher to report the serial number and
waiting for the dispatcher to report back as to whether the rifle had been reported stolen.
For the reasons stated above, that action exceeded the proper scope of a protective sweep.
The state also cites Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S. Ct. 781 (2009), and
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005), in support of its argument that
Deputy Pomplun’s actions were not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Those two
opinions are inapplicable because they are not concerned with protective sweeps; rather,
they are concerned with the actions that an officer may take during an investigatory stop.
See Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333, 129 S. Ct. at 788; Caballes, 543 U.S. at 408-09, 125 S. Ct.
at 837-38. The caselaw governing investigatory stops gives law-enforcement officers the
flexibility to respond to additional information that suggests additional criminal activity.
The caselaw expressly authorizes an officer to expand the scope of an investigatory stop
if the officer acquires information during the stop that gives rise to a reasonable suspicion
16
of other criminal activity, even if officer safety is not threatened. See State v. Smith, 814
N.W.2d 346, 350 (Minn. 2012); State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836, 845 (Minn. 2011); State
v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 364 (Minn. 2004); State v. Wiegand, 645 N.W.2d 125,
135 (Minn. 2002). But the caselaw concerning investigatory stops is inapplicable to this
case because an officer conducting a protective sweep is subject to narrower restrictions:
“a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found” that is “no longer
than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 335-36,
110 S. Ct. at 1099. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Minnesota Supreme
Court has expressly authorized an officer to expand a protective-sweep search beyond the
limitations described in Buie. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s post-Buie caselaw
suggests that Buie’s limitations would continue to govern even if an incriminating item
were found in plain view during a protective-sweep search. See Horton, 496 U.S. at 139-
40, 110 S. Ct. at 2309.
Thus, the district court erred by concluding that Deputy Pomplun did not exceed
the proper scope of a valid protective sweep when he called the dispatcher, reported the
serial number of the rifle, and waited for the dispatcher to refer to a database and report
back to him as to whether the rifle had been reported stolen. Because the parties agree
that the information derived from those actions was the basis of the search warrants that
were obtained on May 29, 2014, the district court should have suppressed the evidence
obtained in the execution of those warrants.
Because the parties agreed to a stipulated-evidence court trial pursuant to rule
26.01, subdivision 4, our conclusion that the district court erred in its pre-trial ruling is
17
dispositive of the case, and a contested trial is unnecessary. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01,
subd. 4(a), (c); see also State v. Yang, 814 N.W.2d 716, 718, 722-23 (Minn. App. 2012)
(reversing conviction without remand after concluding that district court erred in pre-trial
ruling in case tried pursuant to rule 26.01, subdivision 4).
Reversed.
18
CONNOLLY, Judge (dissenting)
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the officer’s entry and search of
the shed were lawful, but I respectfully dissent from its conclusion that the officer
exceeded the permissible scope of a protective sweep when, during his search of
the shed, he reported the serial number on the rifle he saw in plain view.
Consequently, I would affirm the district court’s decision not to suppress the
evidence and affirm appellant’s felony convictions for possession of a controlled
substance and possession of a short-barreled shotgun.
This issue involves two exceptions to the warrant requirement: the
protective-sweep exception and the plain-view exception. The protective-sweep
search exception, “aimed at protecting . . . officers,” is set out in Maryland v. Buie,
494 U.S. 325, 335,110 S. Ct. 1093, 1099 (1999). It is limited in space (to “‘a
cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found’”) and in time
(“‘no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and in
any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises’”).
State v. Bergerson, 671 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Minn. App. 2003) (quoting Buie, 494
U.S. at 335, 336, 110 S. Ct. at 1099).
The plain-view exception, in contrast, is aimed at protecting evidence and
is set out in Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375-76, 113 S. Ct. 1230, 2136-
37 (1993). It is limited to the seizure of items: (1) seen by police who were
lawfully in a position from which they could see the items, (2) whose
incriminating character was immediately apparent, and (3) to which the officers
D-1
had a lawful right of access. In re G.M., 560 N.W.2d 687, 693 (citing Dickerson,
508 U.S. at 375, 113 S. Ct. at 2136-37). The two exceptions are far from mutually
exclusive; in fact, they may be invoked simultaneously. An officer engaged in a
lawful protective sweep “need not close his eyes to what he sees during the sweep,
and any contraband that he observes in plain view may lawfully be seized.”
United States v. Arch, 7 F.3d 1300, 1303 (7th Cir. 1993) (citing Buie, 494 U.S. at
330, 110 S. Ct. at 1096).
Here, the officer was making a cursory inspection of the shed, where a
person (specifically, the one person who had been seen on the property and had
not yet been found) could have been concealed, thus fulfilling the purpose of the
protective-sweep exception: protecting officers. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 335, 110 S.
Ct. at 1099. The officer’s presence in the shed, where he saw the rifle, with its
serial number facing him, lying visible on a couch, was lawful; so was his right of
access to the rifle, thus fulfilling the first and third requirements of the plain-view
exception.
Moreover, “common sense dictates that a firearm that could be accessed by
someone at the scene and used against officers or others should be unloaded . . .
.” 1 United States v. Rodriguez, 601 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2010). To discover
whether the rifle was loaded, and, if it was, to unload it, the officer had to pick it
up and open it. When he did so, the serial number became legible to him, as the
1
The officer’s act in inadvertently leaving the shells next to the rifle instead of
removing them does not affect the lawfulness of his decision to remove them.
D-2
attached photograph of the rifle indicates. But the fact that the serial number
became legible because the officer picked up and opened the rifle does not mean
that the officer manipulated the rifle so he could read the serial number. When
asked at the omnibus hearing if his purpose in picking up the rifle was to view the
serial number, the officer answered, “It was not”; when asked if his purpose was to
ensure that the rifle was unloaded, he answered, “Yes.” The district court said that
it “accept[ed] his testimony as credible,” and this court defers to a factfinder’s
credibility determinations. See State v. Al-Naseer, 788 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Minn.
2010) (noting that factfinder is in the best position to assess the credibility of
witnesses).
There remains only the second requirement of the plain-view exception:
was the incriminating character of the rifle immediately apparent? I understand
and appreciate that the right to possess a firearm is guaranteed by the second
amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783,
2821-22 (2008) (holding that a “ban on handgun possession in the home violates
the Second Amendment”). But, while a rifle, by itself, may not be incriminating,
it is necessary to consider the context of the situation. Here, in the brief incident
giving rise to the protective sweep, one person had been waving a pistol around,
refused to drop it when told to do so by an officer, and had to be subdued by
officers before he was arrested; another person was observed dropping drug
paraphernalia, ran from the officers, and had to be subdued prior to arrest; two
other people were arrested; and a fifth person on the scene disappeared and was
D-3
believed to be somewhere on the property. Under these circumstances, an
unattended, loaded rifle in an unoccupied, open building was incriminating. 2 The
requirements for both the protective-sweep exception and the plain-view exception
to the warrant requirement were satisfied.
Moreover, even if the rifle’s incriminating character was not immediately
apparent, I simply do not believe there was a search or a seizure when the officer
ran a check on the serial number, nor do I believe there is a search or a seizure
when an officer runs a check on a license plate of an automobile. This case is very
different from Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 107 S. Ct. 1149 (1987) (addressing
whether an officer’s moving of stereo equipment to locate its serial number
constituted a search).
[The] moving of the [stereo] equipment . . . did
constitute a “search” separate and apart from the
search for the shooter, victims, and weapons that was
the lawful objective of his entry into the apartment.
Merely inspecting those parts of the turntable that
came into view during the latter search would not have
constituted an independent search, because it would
have produced no additional invasion of respondent’s
privacy interest.
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324-25, 107 S. Ct. 1149, 1152 (1987) (emphasis
added). In Hicks, the police officer had no reason to move the stereo equipment
other than to locate the serial number and determine if the equipment had been
stolen. Here, the officer had an independent reason for handling the rifle: he had
2
See United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 936-37 (8th Cir. 2013)
(concluding that incriminating nature of guns was immediately apparent because
they were in close proximity to drugs and drug-related equipment).
D-4
to determine if it was loaded. In the course of doing so, he observed the serial
number and immediately reported it. That is precisely what the U.S. Supreme
Court said was permissible. See id.
This case is also similar to Commonwealth v. Ramsey, 744 S.W.2d 418,
418 (Ky. 1987) (rejecting the argument that copying the serial number of a chain
saw found in a vehicle by an officer who had just arrested the driver was an
unlawful seizure). 3
[A police officer’s t]aking a serial number from
a chain saw located in the passenger compartment of
the arrestee’s vehicle and believed by the police officer
to be stolen, incident to a lawful custodial arrest, was a
lawful search.
The arrest and search [were lawful] and the
copying of the chain saw’s serial number [was] not an
unreasonable seizure.
Id. at 419. Here, the officer’s decision to report the serial number of a rifle he was
already lawfully holding did not violate the warrant requirement or impinge on
appellant’s Fourth-Amendment rights. The rifle had been left, unattended,
accessible, and loaded, in a building that the officer had lawfully entered, and the
officer lawfully picked it up, opened it, and unloaded it. His right to report the
serial number of the rifle in his hand was not cancelled because a protective sweep
was going on at the time. “The Fourth Amendment . . . does not . . . require tunnel
vision.” State v. Shevchuk, 291 Minn. 365, 367, 191 N.W.2d 557, 559 (1971)
(holding that an officer approaching a traffic violator in an automobile is “is not
3
There appears to be no Minnesota case directly on point. While the Kentucky
case is not dispositive, it is persuasive.
D-5
required to avert his eyes from anything else inside of the automobile lest he
should see criminal contents in plain sight”). Nor is an officer lawfully handling a
rifle required to avert his eyes from, or to refrain from reporting, its serial number.
D-6
D-7