Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A06-199

Court of Appeals

Anderson, Paul H., J.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey David Mohs, Appellant. Filed: January 10, 2008 Office of Appellate Courts

SYLLABUS

The district court did not violate either the federal or state constitution by issuing a bench warrant based on personal knowledge obtained in an official capacity that a defendant had notice of a scheduled court appearance but did not appear. Knowledge of the reason for a defendants failure to appear at a scheduled court appearance is not necessary to the district courts probable cause determination for the issuance of a warrant when the warrant merely orders that the defendant be brought before the court to advance the ongoing proceedings and does not impose criminal sanctions for the failure to appear.

1

Neither the Minnesota Constitution nor the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure require that a bail amount be specified on the face of a warrant issued based on a violation of a defendants conditions of release. Affirmed. Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice. After Jeffrey David Mohs failed to appear for a pretrial hearing and a jury trial, the Anoka County District Court issued a bench warrant for his arrest. While executing this warrant, the police discovered and seized a plastic bag containing methamphetamine. Mohs was subsequently charged with a fifth-degree controlled substance offense. Mohs moved to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest, claiming that the bench warrant violated the federal and state constitutions because it was not based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and did not specify a bail amount. The district court denied Mohss motion, and Mohs was convicted of the fifth-degree controlled substance offense following a court trial. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts denial of Mohss suppression motion on appeal. We affirm. Appellant Jeffrey David Mohs was scheduled to appear before the Anoka County District Court at 8:30 a.m. on November 1, 2004, for a pretrial hearing on a misdemeanor violation of an order for protection charge and for a jury trial on a felony pattern of harassing conduct charge. The district court called Mohss case at approximately 2

9:00 a.m., but Mohs was not present. Mohs still had not appeared when the court went on the record in his cases at 9:49 a.m. After Mohss attorney stated that Mohs was aware of the date of the hearing and the time that he was to appear, the court indicated that it would grant the states request for a bench warrant, but that it would "certainly take care of [Mohs]" if he appeared later in the day. The facts regarding Mohss knowledge of the hearing and his nonappearance were not submitted to the court through an affidavit or sworn testimony. On the bench warrant, the district court marked a box next to preprinted language stating: "The defendant failed to appear before this court on __________ pursuant to the Order of the Court for __________." The court typed "11-01-04" in the first blank and "Pretrial [misdemeanor case number] Jury Trial [felony case number]" in the second blank. In preprinted language, the warrant ordered "the Sheriff of Anoka County or any other person authorized by law to execute this warrant * * * to apprehend and arrest and promptly bring the defendant before this court without unnecessary delay, not later than 36 hours after arrest or as soon thereafter as such judge is available, to be dealt with according to law." In the place designated for a bail amount, the court wrote "Body Only." The warrant was dated "11/1/04" and signed by the court. Later that day, Mohs appeared at the Anoka County courthouse and approached the prosecuting attorney in the hallway. The prosecutor told Mohs that a warrant had been issued because he had not appeared and that his attorney had left the courthouse, but that Mohs could appear before the court to schedule a new trial date. The prosecutor also told Mohs that the state would not seek further bail or arrest if a new trial date was set 3

that day. Mohs left the courthouse without appearing before the court and did not reappear to schedule a new trial date. The next afternoon, a police officer with the Blaine Police Department was attempting to enforce the warrant and received information that Mohs might be at his girlfriends house. While parked in a police car on a public street near the house, the police officer saw Mohs leave the house and walk toward his truck. The truck was parked on the street across from the house. After Mohs apparently saw the police car, the officer saw Mohs remove some items from his pockets, throw them on the ground, and stomp on them. The officer then approached Mohs, arrested him, and searched the area where the officer had seen Mohs throw the objects from his pockets. During this search, the officer found a smashed glass pipe and a plastic bag containing a white crystalline powder. Subsequent laboratory tests established that the powder in the bag contained methamphetamine. Based on the evidence found by the police officer, Mohs was charged on November 3, 2004, with one count of fifth-degree controlled substance offense for possession of methamphetamine. On that same day, the district court reinstated Mohss original bonds and set bail at an additional $3,000 on the original misdemeanor violation of an order for protection and felony pattern of harassing conduct charges. The next day, the district court also set bail on the new controlled substance charge at a Rule 5 hearing. Mohs subsequently filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during his arrest, arguing that the bench warrant violated the federal and state constitutions because it was not based upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and did not 4

provide for bail. The district court denied Mohss motion on May 25, 2005. The court concluded that "so long as probable cause to support the warrant is affirmed, the manner in which the oath is made, whether it appears upon the face of the warrant or the record in Court, does not render the warrant unconstitutional," and that the necessary facts of Mohss failure to appear were affirmed on the record before the bench warrant was issued. With regard to bail, the court concluded that defendants are entitled to a bail hearing within 36 hours of arrest, not to have the bail amount set forth in the warrant. Following the district courts ruling, Mohs submitted his case for a court trial on a stipulated factual record from the police reports pursuant to State v. Lothenbach.1 A week later, the district court found Mohs guilty of the fifth-degree controlled substance offense. On December 30, 2005, the district court ordered that adjudication of this matter be stayed for 5 years. The court of appeals affirmed the district courts order, concluding that the bench warrant was supported by probable cause that Mohs failed to appear, that the warrant "did not offend the oath-or-affirmation clause[s]" in the federal and state constitutions, and that Mohs failed to identify a constitutional violation with respect to the bail issue. State v. Mohs, 726 N.W.2d 816, 819-22 (Minn. App. 2007). I. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and

1

In State v. Lothenbach, we authorized the submission of a criminal case for a court trial based on stipulated facts, rather than the entry of a guilty plea, to preserve the defendants right to appeal pretrial decisions regarding the suppression of evidence. 296 N.W.2d 854, 857-58 (Minn. 1980). 5

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Minnesota Constitution, using nearly identical language,2 places the same restrictions on the issuance of warrants. Minn. Const. art. I,

Download A06-199, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey David Mohs, Appellant..pdf

Minnesota Law