Probable Cause or Just a Hunch? MN Appeals Court Reverses Gun Conviction in State v. Johnson over Faulty Warrant
This week, in State v. Johnson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a conviction for illegal possession of a firearm after ruling that a warrant to search one of Johnson’s vehicles was not supported by probable cause. The opinion reaffirms the standard that probable cause requires a fair probability, rather than mere suspicion, that the evidence sought will be found.
In October 2021, Osseo police arrested the defendant on outstanding warrants, discovering large amounts of marijuana, cash, and drug paraphernalia in his vehicle. Police surveillance linked him to multiple vehicles, including a Chevrolet Tahoe which he accessed just prior to the arrest. Officers found the Tahoe’s key on him and applied for a search warrant. Officers based their warrant application on the fact that the defendant had a history of drug and firearm offenses, arguing that drug dealers often store evidence in vehicles they frequently use. A judge found probable cause and granted the warrant, and the search of the Tahoe uncovered a handgun. The district court subsequently convicted the defendant of illegal possession of a firearm as an ineligible person, sentencing him to six years in prison.
On appeal of the firearm conviction, the defense argued that the warrant application lacked any direct link between the Tahoe and criminal activity. The police affidavit used to obtain the warrant did not claim that officers saw the accused conduct drug transactions, carry a weapon, or hide contraband in the vehicle. Nor did it mention any recent tips, informants, or surveillance suggesting that evidence would be found inside. The defense argued that police had relied exclusively on his prior record, inferences about the location of evidence, and the idea that his pattern of behavior resembled drug dealing.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the defense’s argument and reversed his firearm conviction. They found that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause because it did not explain why the Tahoe was likely to contain evidence of a crime. The court argued that, while police might have shown the defendant frequently used the vehicle, they failed to articulate a basis for believing the vehicle contained drugs, money, paraphernalia, or firearms. Essentially, the court found that the connection between the Tahoe and evidence of criminal behavior was too speculative to support probable cause for granting a warrant, regardless of his criminal history or recent arrest. Because the warrant was invalid, the search was unconstitutional, and the firearm should have been suppressed. Therefore, the conviction was reversed.
The key takeaway from State v. Johnson is that the probable cause to support a search warrant requires more than mere suspicion of criminal activity based on association with a vehicle. Instead, warrant applications in Minnesota require that officers provide a clear, factual basis to believe that specific evidence will be found in a specific place. For criminal defendants in Minnesota, this ruling reinforces the strict standards regarding search warrants and requires probable cause to be grounded in concrete facts.
Robert H. Ambrose is a criminal defense attorney and DWI lawyer in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Super Lawyers named him a Super Lawyer for the past four years and a Rising Star in the preceding six years. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. Criminal Defense Lawyer Woodbury, Criminal Defense Attorney Minnesota, Felony Lawyer Minnesota.