This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2006).
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Matthew Harvey Derby,
Pipestone County District Court
File No. 59K904000343
Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2134; and
James E. O’Neill,
John M. Stuart, Minnesota Public Defender, Sara L. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, Suite 425, 2221 University Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, MN 55414 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Stoneburner, Presiding Judge; Dietzen, Judge; and Worke, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction of fifth-degree controlled-substance offense, arguing that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warranted search because omissions of material facts from the warrant application invalidated the warrant. We affirm.
On August 12, 2004, Pipestone County
Deputy Sheriff Dale Mathews, a 25-year veteran law-enforcement officer,
arranged a controlled buy of 2 1/2 pounds of methamphetamine between an
undercover officer and Jose Wilmer Callejas.
Callejas arrived at the pre-arranged location and indicated that he did
not have enough methamphetamine to sell at that time, so the undercover officer
arranged to purchase methamphetamine from Callejas later in the day in
In a subsequent interview, Callejas
told Mathews that he had delivered one gram of methamphetamine to Randy Lee
On August 13, 2004, Mathews applied
for a warrant to search
Mathews and other deputies executed
the warrant the same day. Officers found
Randy Stevens in a bedroom and recovered mail addressed to him at the
residence. The door leading to the
upstairs of the residence was locked.
Stevens said that the door led to
On appeal, Derby argues that the
warrant should be invalidated, the evidence suppressed, and his conviction
vacated because Mathews omitted material facts in the affidavit supporting the
warrant application, and the omitted material facts would have precluded
issuance of the warrant. In reviewing
pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, this court independently
reviews the facts and determines, as a matter of law, whether the district
court erred in suppressing or not suppressing the evidence. State
v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (
“[T]he affiant must provide the magistrate with sufficient factual information regarding the circumstances which the affiant believes establish probable cause.” State v.
Doyle,336 N.W.2d 247, 249 (
“The Minnesota Supreme Court has
extended Franks to apply to material
omissions from the affidavit. . . . The test is whether, after supplying the
omissions, the affidavit established probable cause.”
In cases primarily involving factual
misstatements or misrepresentations—as opposed to factual omissions—in warrant
applications, the determination of the validity of the warrant has been based
on (1) whether the misrepresented or misstated facts were material to
establishing probable cause and (2) whether the facts were deliberately or
recklessly misrepresented or misstated in the affidavit. State
v. Causey, 257 N.W.2d 288, 292-93 (
In cases involving a challenge to a warrant based on facts omitted from a warrant application, the supreme court has articulated a different test. See Doyle, 336 N.W.2d at 250 (stating that once a defendant has established reckless or intentional omission of facts, the trial court should supply the omissions and decide whether the affidavit established probable cause); see also Smith, 448 N.W.2d at 555 (citing Doyle and stating that “[t]he test is whether, after supplying the omissions, the affidavit established probable cause”). Because this case involves allegations of omissions, we analyze it under the test set out in Smith. But we note that under either test, unless the affiant’s action was reckless or intentional, the warrant will not be invalidated.
Derby contends that Mathews
recklessly and/or intentionally failed to state in the affidavit that (1) he
did not know if Randy Lee Stevens lived at 713 North Hiawatha or would be at the
home on the day of the search; (2) he did not know whether the previous drug
sales to Stevens had occurred at 713 North Hiawatha; (3) he did not know
whether the drugs that Callejas sold to Stevens the previous day would still be
in the home; and (4) he had no evidence that there would be weapons, valuable
items, or U.S. currency in the home.
Mathews’s omnibus testimony confirmed that he did not know with
certainty whether Randy Stevens lived at 713 North Hiawatha Ave, whether
Stevens would be at the house on August 13, whether the prior sales had
occurred at that address, or whether the one gram of methamphetamine delivered
to Stevens on August 12 would still be in the house on August 13. Mathews testified that his assertion that
there was probable cause to find weapons,
The district court found that there was “no evidence that Deputy Mathews acted intentionally or recklessly in drafting the affidavit.” Because on this record, we cannot conclude that this finding is clearly erroneous, and because we defer to a district court’s credibility determinations, we must conclude that Mathews did not intentionally or recklessly omit information from the warrant application. See Smith, 448 N.W.2d at 555 (stating that determinations of credibility of witnesses at the omnibus hearing are left to the trial court and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous).
Because any omissions by Mathews
were not reckless or intentional, the omissions do not invalidate the warrant,
and the district court correctly denied
 On appeal,