Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-2312 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Cedric L. Stephenson, Appellant. Filed February 3, 2009 Affirmed Bjorkman, Judge

Carver County District Court File No. CR-06-779 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, 1800 Bremer Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and Alina Schwartz, Campbell Knutson, 317 Eagandale Office Center, 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, MN 55121 (for respondent) Lawrence Hammerling, Chief Appellate Public Defender, 540 Fairview Avenue North, Suite 300, St. Paul, MN 55104; and Aakash Chandarana, Special Assistant State Public Defender, Briggs and Morgan, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Connolly, Judge. SYLLABUS An individual does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a home from which he or she is excluded by a valid court order.

OPINION BJORKMAN, Judge Appellant challenges the district court`s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his presence at his home that was obtained during a warrantless search. Because there was a specific and valid legal order prohibiting appellant`s presence at the home at the time the police officer conducted the search, appellant had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and we therefore affirm. FACTS On July 13, 2007, appellant Cedric Stephenson`s wife, T.L.S., petitioned for an order for protection (OFP) against appellant due to verbal and mental abuse and threats of physical violence. The district court granted the OFP on August 3, 2007, ordering appellant not to enter the family residence (the residence). The OFP was effective for a two-year period and specifically stated: You are forbidden to enter or stay at

petitioner`s residence for any reason, even if invited to do so. Approximately two weeks after the district court issued the OFP, appellant failed to appear in court for a probation-violation hearing. The district court issued a bench warrant for his arrest; the warrant identified appellant`s address as the residence from which he was excluded by the OFP. A few days later, Corporal Eric Kittelson of the Carver County Sheriff`s Department went to the residence to execute the warrant. When Kittelson arrived at the residence, he ran a registration check on a vehicle parked in the driveway. In doing so, he learned that there was a valid OFP against appellant which prohibited his presence at 2

the residence. Kittelson then approached the house, a split-level twin home, and saw a television on in the lower level. He looked through the blinds and saw appellant sitting on the couch watching television.1 Kittelson had been to the residence numerous times and knew both appellant and T.L.S. by sight. Kittelson went to the front door and rang the doorbell. T.L.S. answered the door; Kittelson asked to talk to appellant, but she said he was not there. Kittelson told her that he knew appellant was in the basement because he saw him through the window. Kittelson also told her that he had a warrant for appellant`s arrest. T.L.S. let Kittelson into the home and told him that appellant was [i]n the bathroom. Kittelson arrested appellant who was later charged with misdemeanor violation of the OFP. Appellant challenged the constitutionality of the warrantless search of the residence. The state concedes that Kittelson`s act of peering through the blinds

constitutes a search. The only evidence submitted to the court was Kittelson`s report. The district court denied appellant`s motion to suppress, stating: Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy because he was wrongfully at the residence pursuant to a court order--an OFP. Because Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy due to the fact that he was legitimately expelled from the premises that was searched, there is no 4th Amendment violation.

1

In its omnibus order, the district court noted: [t]here was some argument as to whether the blinds were open or closed at the time, however the Court can clearly infer from the police reports that the blinds were open enough for Dep. Kittelson to observe Defendant--who he knew by sight.

3

Appellant agreed to submit the case for a stipulated facts trial. The district court concluded that appellant knew of the OFP and that he violated the order by entering the residence. follows. ISSUE Does a person who is prohibited from entering or staying at a residence pursuant to a valid court order have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that residence? ANALYSIS When the facts are undisputed, a district court`s pretrial suppression ruling presents a question of law. State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218, 221 (Minn. 1992). We independently review the facts to determine whether the district court erred in suppressing, or not suppressing, the evidence. State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999). The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect an individual`s right to be free from unreasonable searches of their persons, houses, papers, and effects. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I,

Download A07-2312, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Cedric L. Stephenson, Appellant..p

Minnesota Law