Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-659 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Stirling Michael Heaton, Appellant. Filed May 7, 2012 Affirmed Hudson, Judge Concurring specially, Ross, Judge St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CR-10-2498 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, John B. Galus, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Mark S. Rubin, St. Louis County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondent) David W. Merchant, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jodie Lee Carlson, Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Bradley T. Smith, Special Assistant Public Defender, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant) Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and Hudson, Judge. SYLLABUS No more than reasonable suspicion is required to search a parolee's home when the search is conducted pursuant to a valid parole condition.

OPINION HUDSON, Judge On appeal from his convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of methamphetamine, appellant argues that (a) his right to be free from warrantless searches was violated when his parole officer conducted a search of his apartment and (b) because he did not consent to the warrantless search, the district court erred by not suppressing evidence discovered during the search. Because a valid,

warrantless search of a parolee's home may be conducted if the search was conducted pursuant to a valid parole condition and was supported by reasonable suspicion, we affirm. FACTS On July 13, 2009, appellant was released from prison after his incarceration for unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; appellant was then placed on intensive supervised release. Before appellant's release, the parole officer assigned to supervise appellant familiarized himself with appellant's criminal history and prior contacts with law enforcement, including a previous parole-compliance search in 2006 that resulted in the discovery of a loaded pistol. Discovery of the firearm led to

appellant's conviction. Appellant's release status was reduced on July 13, 2010, from intensive supervised release to supervised-release status. Appellant's conditions of

release stated: "The offender will submit at any time to an unannounced visit and/or search of the offender's person, vehicle or premises by the agent/designee." There is no dispute that appellant signed the conditions of release. 2

On July 22, 2010, appellant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Carlton County law enforcement. Another occupant of the vehicle was arrested on an

outstanding warrant. During the stop, appellant was searched, and officers found that he was carrying $3,000 in cash. Appellant told the officers that the cash came from the sale of his car, but he was unable to provide documentation regarding the transaction. The next day, appellant's parole officer was informed by law enforcement about the traffic stop. Appellant also contacted the parole officer that day, as required by his parolerelease conditions, and told him of the contact with law enforcement. The parole officer thought it "very odd" that appellant, with a modestly paying job, would carry $3,000 in cash with no documentation to explain the source of the income. Based on the discovery of the cash and the parole officer's knowledge of the 2006 search, the parole officer determined that "there was a strong possibility" that appellant's apartment contained contraband. The parole officer, accompanied by three plain-clothes police officers, went to appellant's apartment and knocked on the door, but appellant was not there. The parole officer then went to the restaurant where appellant worked as a cook, but he was unable to speak with him because the restaurant was busy. The parole officer returned to appellant's apartment, where the officers remained, and waited for appellant to return. Around midnight, appellant was dropped off at home by a co-worker and found the parole officer and the police officers waiting for him in an alley behind his apartment. Appellant was handcuffed and searched, during which approximately $2,600 in cash was found on appellant, and appellant's apartment key was removed from his pocket. The 3

parole officer then directed everyone to enter appellant's apartment and used appellant's key to unlock the front door of the apartment. After entering the apartment, the parole officer--with all three police officers present--asked appellant about the traffic stop and the large amount of cash he had been carrying. Appellant told the parole officer that he had sold his car to a man from the Mille Lacs/Hinckley area and knew the buyer's first name but not his last. Appellant could not provide a receipt or any other documentation regarding the sale. At this point, the parole officer explained his concerns about the stop and the cash appellant had been carrying and told appellant he wanted to conduct a compliance search of the apartment. The parole officer testified that he then asked appellant for consent to search the apartment. The parole officer further testified that appellant "was silent. He did not say no, he did not say yes." One of the officers escorted appellant to the bathroom and stayed with him for the duration of the search. During the search, a pistol wrapped in a bandana was found under the kitchen sink and suspected methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were located on top of the kitchen cabinets. These items were seized and inventoried. The state charged appellant with possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Minn. Stat.

Download A11-659, State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Stirling Michael Heaton, Appellant.

Minnesota Law