This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2002).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Donn Lee Greeley,
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 01046119
John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Steven P. Russett, Assistant State Public Defender, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, 1800 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Amy Klobuchar, Hennepin County Attorney, David C. Brown, Assistant County Attorney, C-2000 Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Suite 425, Minneapolis, MN 55487 (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Presiding; Kalitowski, Judge; and Wright, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree possession of a controlled substance, arguing that (1) the search-warrant application did not provide particularized findings to justify an unannounced entry; and (2) the district court erred in declining to address, on the ground of mootness, whether the officers reappraised the need for an unannounced entry at the threshold. We affirm.
A confidential informant reported to Robbinsdale Police Officer Thomas Rothfork that appellant Donn Greeley and three other people were operating a methamphetamine lab at 3129 Grimes Avenue. The informant also reported to Rothfork that Greeley and his roommates were counterfeiting checks and driver’s licenses at the residence.
Two days later, Rothfork executed a “garbage pull” at the residence, which he coordinated with the sanitation company to search the garbage collected from the residence. In the garbage, Rothfork discovered 40 empty packages of Sudafed cold tablets, an empty bottle of muratic acid, pieces of glass and plastic tubing, packaging for two butane torches, several plastic baggies and tear-offs that field tested positive for methamphetamine, an empty battery package, several drug notes, copies of forged driver’s licenses, and counterfeiting supplies. Rothfork immediately applied for a no-knock, nighttime search warrant.
As the basis for the no-knock provision of the search warrant, Rothfork stated in the search-warrant application that improper disposal of the chemicals found in the garbage search posed a danger to the officers and a health risk to the public. The search-warrant application contained the information supplied by the confidential informant, a description of the items collected in the garbage search, the opinion of a crime lab analyst that the number of Sudafed packages recovered in the garbage indicated the operation of a large-scale methamphetamine lab at the residence, and Rothfork’s opinion that “[b]ased on [his] training and experience[,] methamphetamine labs incorporate the use of highly hazardous chemicals . . . [that] are highly toxic in both liquid and gaseous forms.” The district court authorized the no-knock, nighttime search warrant.
When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we conduct a de novo review to determine as a matter of law whether the district court’s decision is erroneous. State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999).