State Of Iowa Vs. Terry Lynn Mcgrane

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 57 / 06-0431
Filed June 15, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellant,
vs.
TERRY LYNN McGRANE,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, John S.
Mackey, Judge.
State seeks discretionary review of district court decision suppressing
drug evidence discovered in defendant’s home and his statements admitting
ownership of the contraband. AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary E. Tabor, Assistant
Attorney General, and Paul L. Martin, County Attorney, for appellant.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellee.
2
STREIT, Justice.
Deputy sheriffs arrested Terry McGrane in his home. They had a
valid arrest warrant for violating probation. After McGrane was arrested,
handcuffed, and seated at the kitchen table, two deputies went to the
upstairs area of the home and discovered drugs, cash, and drug
paraphernalia. After this initial search, McGrane was taken to jail and the
deputies obtained a search warrant. McGrane moved to suppress all of the
evidence seized as well as his incriminating statements concerning the
evidence. We find the deputies’ initial search violated McGrane’s
constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. The initial
search was neither a search incident to arrest nor a valid protective sweep.
Moreover, the evidence was not in “plain view.” The State failed to prove the
evidence was obtained through an independent source. Consequently, the
district court properly excluded all of the evidence and incriminating
statements under the exclusionary rule. We affirm the district court.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
On July 14, 2005, Cerro Gordo County Deputy Sheriff Matt Klunder
was surveilling a house in Mason City looking for McGrane. McGrane was
wanted on an outstanding arrest warrant for violating the terms of his
probation. Shortly after 3:00 p.m., Deputy Klunder saw Alberto Ramon, the
brother of McGrane’s girlfriend, Rosemary Ramon, leave the residence and
drive off in a Chevy Blazer. Deputy Klunder knew Alberto’s driver’s license
was suspended so he stopped him. Alberto told Deputy Klunder McGrane
was in the house.
Being otherwise occupied with the traffic stop, Deputy Klunder called
Chief Deputy David Hepperly to let him know McGrane’s whereabouts.
Deputy Hepperly and Deputy Nathan Ewalt arrived at the house at
approximately 3:20 p.m. Deputy Ewalt knocked on the residence’s side
3
door, which leads directly into the kitchen. Rosemary’s daughter, Melissa
Schutz, who was in her early 20s, answered the door. Schutz initially
denied McGrane was there. When the deputies told her they had
information he was there, Schutz’s demeanor changed and she allowed the
deputies to enter the home. The three proceeded into the kitchen area.
Around the corner of the kitchen, there was a stairwell leading to the
second floor of the one-and-a-half story house. Schutz yelled up the stairs
for McGrane. Deputy Hepperly heard someone moving around upstairs and
started up the staircase. When Deputy Hepperly was about a third of the
way up the stairs, McGrane appeared from behind a bed sheet curtain
which was used to cordon off a small storage area to the right of the top of
the steps. Deputy Hepperly saw McGrane put something behind the
curtain as he emerged from behind it. Deputy Hepperly informed McGrane
of the arrest warrant and ordered him downstairs. McGrane walked down
the stairs and into the kitchen. 1 McGrane was told he was being arrested
pursuant to the warrant. Deputy Ewalt searched him, placed him in
handcuffs and sat him down on a kitchen chair. According to Deputy
Ewalt, McGrane was cooperative at all times.
Deputy Hepperly contacted Deputy Klunder and told him McGrane
was in custody. Shortly thereafter, Deputy Klunder arrived at the house
and Deputy Hepperly told him McGrane tried to hide something behind the
curtain upstairs. Deputy Klunder and Deputy Hepperly then went upstairs,
leaving McGrane in Deputy Ewalt’s custody.
The record does not clearly explain the layout of the second level of
the residence. It appears the stairway led to an open area and did not
include separate rooms or closets. The living area included a bed,
1It is unclear from the record whether Deputy Ewalt exerted physical control over
McGrane on the stairway or at the bottom of the stairs.
4
couch/futon, coffee table, and computer stand. While upstairs, Deputy
Klunder observed drugs and paraphernalia strewn on the coffee table. The
deputy also saw a scale, some baggies on the bed, and “a pillow type item
with a zipper on it that had a baggie sticking out of it.” Deputy Klunder
removed the baggie and found marijuana and cash. Deputy Klunder also
saw marijuana in a tray on the computer stand. Meanwhile, from behind
the bed sheet curtain, Deputy Hepperly retrieved a small leather pouch,
which contained $60 in cash and thirteen small baggies of what appeared to
be methamphetamine. Among the general disarray of the upstairs living
area, the deputies also found several items of property in unopened
packages.
Returning downstairs, Deputy Klunder asked McGrane about the
items upstairs, and McGrane admitted “there was drug paraphernalia in the
upstairs.” Sometime following this exchange, Deputy Ewalt took McGrane
to the county jail for processing.
Deputies Klunder and Hepperly contacted Investigator Logan Wernet
of the Mason City Police Department for assistance in applying for a search
warrant. Based on the information Investigator Wernet received from them
regarding their initial search of the second floor, the surveillance conducted
by Deputy Hepperly the day before, and McGrane’s criminal history (which
included convictions for possession and delivery of drugs), Investigator
Wernet applied for and obtained a warrant to search the house for drugs,
weapons, and drug-related evidence. The deputies seized multiple baggies
of methamphetamine and marijuana, as well as scales, a scanner and
various items of drug paraphernalia.
At about 10:30 that night, Deputies Hepperly and Klunder
interviewed McGrane at the jail. Deputy Klunder read McGrane the
Miranda warning at the beginning of the interview. McGrane did not
5
request counsel at any time during the interview. He made several
incriminating statements concerning the evidence seized from his home.
McGrane was charged with three counts: (1) possession of more than
five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver in violation of Iowa
Code section 124.401(1) (2005), a class “B” felony, (2) a tax stamp violation
under Iowa Code section 453B.12, a class “D” felony, and (3) possession of
marijuana as a third or subsequent offense in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(5), a class “D” felony. McGrane pled not guilty. He alleged the
deputies’ initial search of his home following his arrest violated his
constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 1, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. McGrane
moved to suppress all evidence seized as well as any statements made by
him after his arrest. The State resisted, citing several exceptions to the
search warrant requirement.
The parties presented evidence at a suppression hearing. The district
court granted McGrane’s motion to suppress, in its entirety. We granted
the State’s application for discretionary review.
II. Standard of Review
We review constitutional claims de novo. State v. Heminover, 619
N.W.2d 353, 356 (Iowa 2000), overruled in part on other grounds by State v.
Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 n.2 (Iowa 2001). This court independently
evaluates the defendant’s claim under the totality of the circumstances.
State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa 1997) (quoting State v. Cook, 530
N.W.2d 728, 731 (Iowa 1995)). The court gives deference to the district
court’s factual findings due to its opportunity to assess the credibility of
witnesses, but the court is not bound by those findings. Turner, 630
N.W.2d at 606.
6
III. Merits
McGrane alleges his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures was violated when the deputies searched the second
floor of his home after he was arrested because the deputies did not have a
search warrant at the time. See U.S. Const. amend. IV; Iowa Const. art. 1,
§ 8. A search conducted without a valid search warrant is per se
unreasonable unless one of the well-known exceptions to the warrant
requirement applies. State v. Kubit, 627 N.W.2d 914, 918 (Iowa 2001)
(citations omitted). The State argues the following exceptions apply to the
present case: (1) search incident to a lawful arrest; (2) protective sweep; and
(3) search of items in plain view. See State v. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d 101, 107
(Iowa 2001) (citing State v. Cline, 617 N.W.2d 277, 282 (Iowa 2000))
(recognizing these exceptions). The State has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that a warrantless search falls within one of
the exceptions. Id. at 107–08 (citing State v. Gillespie, 619 N.W.2d 345, 350
(Iowa 2000)).
A. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement
McGrane does not deny the deputies had a right to arrest him in his
home. The deputies had a warrant for his arrest based on an alleged
violation of his probation. The Supreme Court has held “an arrest warrant
founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to
enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives when there is reason to believe
the suspect is within.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 603, 100 S. Ct.
1371, 1388, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639, 661 (1980); accord State v. Luloff, 325 N.W.2d
103, 105 (Iowa 1982). Moreover, Schutz consented to the deputies entering
the home.
Nevertheless, McGrane argues the deputies’ search of the upstairs
portion of his home after he was arrested was unreasonable and therefore
7
unconstitutional. We now consider the State’s proffered justifications for
the warrantless search.
1. Search Incident to Arrest
The State argues the deputies’ search of the upstairs portion of
McGrane’s home was a valid search incident to arrest. The Supreme Court
has “recognized there is ample justification for the search of an arrestee’s
person and the area within his or her immediate control.” State v. Canas,
597 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Iowa 1999) (citing Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752,
763, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 2040, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685, 694 (1969)), overruled in part
on other grounds by Turner, 630 N.W.2d at 606 n.2. The area to be
searched is limited to the arrestee’s “grab” area. Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763,
89 S. Ct. at 2040, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 694. “The purpose of such a search is to
prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence or gaining possession of a
weapon which could be used to resist arrest or effect an escape.” Canas,
597 N.W.2d at 492 (citing Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S. Ct. at 2040, 23
L. Ed. 2d at 694). Thus, in order to be constitutional, “[a] search incident to
an arrest must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and
confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.” Id. (citing Vale v.
Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 33, 90 S. Ct. 1969, 1971, 26 L. Ed. 2d 409, 413
(1970)). The search-incident-to-arrest exception does not provide authority
“for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest
occurs.” Chimel, 395 U.S. at 763, 89 S. Ct. at 2040, 23 L. Ed. 2d at 694.
Both parties contend we must first decide where in the home
McGrane was arrested in order to determine whether the deputies’
warrantless search was a valid search incident to arrest. 2 The State claims
2For Fourth Amendment purposes, an arrest occurs when two conditions are
satisfied: (1) the officers assert their authority to arrest and the purpose of the arrest; and
(2) either the defendant submits to their control or the officers apply physical force in order
to subdue him. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626–27, 111 S. Ct. 1547, 1551, 113
L. Ed. 2d 690, 697 (1991) (quoting Rollin M. Perkins, The Law of Arrest, 20 Iowa L. Rev.
8
McGrane was arrested at the top of the stairs when he complied with
Deputy Hepperly’s order to come downstairs. According to the State, the
search-incident-to-arrest exception allowed the deputies to search the
upstairs area after McGrane was handcuffed downstairs. McGrane, on the
other hand, contends he was not arrested until he was downstairs in the
kitchen and one of the deputies handcuffed him. Under the latter theory,
the upstairs portion of McGrane’s home would certainly not be “the
immediate vicinity of the arrest.” Canas, 597 N.W.2d at 492; see People v.
Robbins, 369 N.E.2d 577, 580 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977) (holding officers greatly
exceeded the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest when they
went upstairs and searched the defendant’s room after he was restrained at
the bottom of the stairs).
However, we need not determine where the arrest occurred. Even if
we found the arrest took place at the top of the stairs, the deputies were still
not permitted to search the upstairs area because McGrane immediately left
that area and remained handcuffed downstairs in the kitchen under armed
guard while the search was conducted. Compare Canas, 597 N.W.2d at 493
(holding officers’ search of defendant’s motel room after he was arrested and
handcuffed upon opening the door was not a valid search incident to arrest
because he was not in the motel room at the time of the search), with State
v. Shane, 255 N.W.2d 324, 327–28 (Iowa 1977) (holding officers’ search of
the defendant’s motel room after he was arrested and handcuffed was a
valid search incident to arrest because the search was confined to the small
motel room where the arrest occurred, it took place within a minute or two
after the arrest, and the defendant was still in the room). The justification
________________________
201, 206 (1940)); State v. Rains, 574 N.W.2d 904, 910 (Iowa 1998). Similarly, Iowa Code
section 804.5 defines an arrest as “the taking of a person into custody when and in the
manner authorized by law, including restraint of the person or the person’s submission to
custody.”
9
of a search incident to arrest is to prevent the arrestee from destroying
evidence or gaining possession of a weapon. McGrane had no realistic
ability to get back upstairs considering his location and the fact he was
restrained.
The search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirement
must be narrowly construed and limited to accommodating only those
interests it was created to serve. United States v. Graham, 638 F.2d 1111,
1114 (7th Cir. 1981) (citing Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 759–60, 99
S. Ct. 2586, 2591, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235, 242 (1979)). We acknowledge some
courts do not require the search area to be accessible to the defendant at
the time of the search. See, e.g., Northrop v. Trippett, 265 F.3d 372, 379
(6th Cir. 2001). However, this court has expressly rejected such a holding
in nonvehicle situations. Canas, 597 N.W.2d at 493 n.2. In State v.
Edgington, 487 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa 1992), we upheld the search of the
contents of a passenger compartment of a vehicle as part of a search
incident to arrest even though the defendant had been removed from the
vehicle and secured elsewhere. Edgington, 487 N.W.2d at 678. In Canas,
we confined our holding in Edgington to “situations in which one’s arrest
involves some type of occupancy in a vehicle.” Canas, 597 N.W.2d at 493
n.2. This makes sense because “we take any government intrusion into a
citizen's dwelling very seriously.” Kubit, 627 N.W.2d at 918 (emphasis
added). Thus, we agree with the district court the deputies’ initial search of
the upstairs area was not a valid search incident to arrest.
2. Protective Sweep
The State also claims the deputies’ search of the upstairs area was
justified as a “protective sweep or cursory safety check.” The combination
of probable cause and exigent circumstances is a recognized exception to
the warrant requirement. We have previously found danger of violence and
10
injury to officers to be an exigent circumstance, which may excuse the
requirement of a search warrant. State v. Holland, 389 N.W.2d 375, 381
(Iowa 1986). “The officers must have specific, articulable grounds to justify
a finding of exigency.” Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 109. The reasonableness of
the officers’ search is based on an objective—as opposed to subjective—
standard. Id. (citing Cline, 617 N.W.2d at 280–82). The Supreme Court has
emphasized a protective sweep is not a full search of the premises:
[It] may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces
where a person may be found. The sweep lasts no longer than
is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger and
in any event no longer than it takes to complete the arrest and
depart the premises.
Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 335–36, 110 S. Ct. 1093, 1099, 108
L. Ed. 2d 276, 287 (1990).
The State interprets Buie as recognizing two types of protective
sweeps: a limited sweep of the arresting area without justification versus a
more expansive search of the premises with justification. In Buie, the
Supreme Court said:
We . . . hold that as an incident to the arrest the officers could,
as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or
reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces
immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack
could be immediately launched. Beyond that, however, we
hold that there must be articulable facts which, taken together
with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a
reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be
swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the
arrest scene.
Buie, 494 U.S. at 334, 110 S. Ct. at 1098, 108 L. Ed. 2d at 286. The State
argues the deputies’ initial search satisfied either Buie “prong.”
The first part of the statement in Buie simply acknowledges the
search-incident-to-arrest exception. Officers are permitted to search the
arrestee’s immediate grab area for weapons and evidence without any
11
reasonable suspicion. This search would necessarily include spaces where
a person could be hidden. If a particular search does not satisfy the search-
incident-to-arrest exception because the officers previously abandoned the
arrest site, then the first prong of the Buie statement will not validate the
search because it is limited to protecting officers from an immediate attack.
We have already held the deputies’ search in the present case was not a
valid search incident to arrest. Thus, for it to be a valid protective sweep,
the State was required to produce “articulable facts which . . . would
warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area . . . swept
harbor[ed] an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”
Buie, 494 U.S. at 334, 110 S. Ct. at 1098, 108 L. Ed. 2d at 286.
The State offers several facts it contends would justify a reasonably
prudent officer to believe individuals were present who posed a danger to
them: McGrane appeared to be dealing drugs out of his home; Schutz
initially lied to the deputies when asked if McGrane was home; and several
people were in the home while the deputies were on the premises. We find
none of these facts justify a protective sweep of the upstairs area of the
home.
The State offered no evidence McGrane was believed to have guns or
weapons in his home. Compare Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 109 (holding
officers’ warrantless search of defendant’s apartment was not a valid
protective sweep in part because there was no evidence that guns or any
other weapons were involved in the burglary), with Holland, 389 N.W.2d at
380–81 (holding officers’ warrantless search was a valid protective sweep
because the arresting officers knew a gun had been stolen in the burglary
and the defendant’s accomplice was still at large). Moreover, the State
offered no evidence to suggest dangerous people may be hiding on the
premises. See United States v. Kimmons, 965 F.2d 1001, 1009 (11th Cir.
12
1992) (holding agents had articulable facts to justify protective sweep of
defendant’s home immediately following his arrest for conspiracy to rob an
armored car: the FBI had just apprehended two of the defendant’s armed
accomplices and had knowledge of fourth conspirator whose identity and
whereabouts were unknown); United States v. Gilbert, 774 F.2d 962, 964
(9th Cir. 1985) (holding officers were permitted to conduct a protective
sweep of defendant’s home because they had information defendant might
be in the company of another fugitive who was reported to be armed, a car
not belonging to defendant was in front of her home and officers surveilling
the home suspected movement inside). Although it may be common for
drug dealers to possess weapons, suspicion of drug dealing alone is not
enough to justify a protective sweep. United States v. Hauk, 412 F.3d 1179,
1187 (10th Cir. 2005) (rejecting police practice of automatic protective
sweeps of “drug houses” on assumption they are inherently dangerous); see
Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 1421, 137
L. Ed. 2d 615, 624 (1997) (rejecting “felony drug investigation” exception to
knock-and-announce rule). The State is still required to allege specific facts
and circumstances upon which reasonable inferences could be drawn to
support a reasonable police officer’s belief that weapons were on the
premises and that someone else could have had access to those weapons
and inflicted harm.
There is also no evidence to suggest the people the deputies
encountered at the home were dangerous. Schutz came to the door when
the deputies knocked. Although she initially lied about McGrane’s
presence, she eventually cooperated. Apparently, the deputies did not
perceive her as a threat because they allowed her to remain in the kitchen
unrestrained. At some point, a man came up from the basement and was
allowed to leave. The deputies did not then do a protective sweep of the
13
basement. McGrane’s girlfriend, Rosemary, and her sister came to the
house while the deputies were there. Apparently, their presence did not
pose a danger to the deputies because they were allowed to enter the home
and stay in the kitchen while the deputies conducted their search.
In short, there was simply no evidence to find a reasonably prudent
officer would believe the upstairs area harbored one or more dangerous
individuals in order to justify the initial search. “This situation did not
involve any objective indication of fear of violence or jeopardy more than any
other police encounter with persons suspected of criminal activity would
involve.” Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 109. Deputy Ewalt even conceded at the
hearing “the threat level wasn’t raised for [him].” He testified he saw no
need to secure the home.
Even if the deputies had reasonable suspicion that individuals were
present who posed a danger to them, their search of the upstairs portion of
McGrane’s home exceeded “those spaces where a person may be found.” 3
Moreover, the deputies had no legitimate purpose for remaining on the
premises after McGrane was arrested. A protective sweep cannot last
“longer than it takes to complete the arrest and depart the premises.”
Buie, 494 U.S. at 335–36, 110 S. Ct. at 1099, 108 L. Ed. 2d at 287. We
agree with the district court that the deputies’ search was not a valid
protective sweep.
3. Plain View
Finally, the State argues a search warrant was not necessary for the
deputies’ initial search because the evidence seized was in plain view. “For
the plain view exception to apply, police must be rightfully in the place that
allows them to make the observation.” Kubit, 627 N.W.2d at 918 (citations
omitted). In addition, the State has the burden of proving (1) the item
3They unzipped one small leather pouch and pulled a baggie out of a pillow.
14
seized was in plain view and (2) its “incriminating character” was
“ ‘immediately apparent.’ ” Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136, 110 S.
Ct. 2301, 2308, 110 L. Ed. 2d 112, 123 (1990) (quoting Coolidge v. New
Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 466, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 2038, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 583
(1971)).
As we have already made clear, the deputies were not “rightfully” in
the upstairs portion of the home after McGrane was arrested, handcuffed,
and placed in the kitchen downstairs. Moreover, the deputies did more
than simply observe evidence out in the open. Thus, the district court
correctly held the plain view exception was not applicable.
B. Exclusionary Rule
We find the initial search by the deputies in this case to be violative of
McGrane’s constitutional rights because the deputies did not have a search
warrant at the time and none of the above-mentioned exceptions to the
warrant requirement was applicable. The exclusionary rule requires the
suppression of evidence discovered as a result of illegal government activity.
Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 111 (citing Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81
S. Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 1090 (1961)). “[T]he exclusionary rule
also prohibits the introduction of derivative evidence, both tangible and
testimonial, that is the product of the primary evidence, or that is otherwise
acquired as an indirect result of the unlawful search, up to the point at
which the connection with the unlawful search becomes ‘so attenuated as to
dissipate the taint.’ ” Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533, 536–37, 108
S. Ct. 2529, 2533, 101 L. Ed. 2d 472, 480 (1988) (quoting Nardone v. United
States, 308 U.S. 338, 341, 60 S. Ct. 266, 268, 84 L. Ed. 307, 312 (1939)).
Justice Frankfurter coined the phrase, “fruit of the poisonous tree,” to
illustrate the concept of tainted evidence. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d at 111
(quoting Nardone, 308 U.S. at 341, 60 S. Ct. at 268, 84 L. Ed. at 312). The
15
purpose of excluding such evidence is twofold: to deter lawless police
conduct and to protect the integrity of the judicial system. Id. (citations
omitted).
However, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In other
words, there are circumstances where the evidence is admissible
notwithstanding the illegal government conduct. The State argues the
independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines are applicable in this
case. Under the independent source doctrine, “it is possible to remove the
taint of a prior illegality by obtaining the same information or evidence
through means independent of the illegal conduct.” State v. Seager, 571
N.W.2d 204, 211 (1997). The inevitable discovery doctrine is “an
extrapolation from the independent source doctrine: Since the tainted
evidence would be admissible if in fact discovered through an independent
source, it should be admissible if it inevitably would have been discovered.”
Murray, 487 U.S. at 539, 108 S. Ct. at 2534, 101 L. Ed. 2d at 481–82. The
justification for these exceptions is as follows:
[T]he interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct
and the public interest in having juries receive all probative
evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting the police
in the same, not a worse, position that they would have been in
if no police error or misconduct had occurred. When the
challenged evidence has an independent source, exclusion of
such evidence would put the police in a worse position than
they would have been in absent any error or violation.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443-44, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2509, 81 L. Ed. 2d
377, 387 (1984) (citations omitted).
Because the State presented no evidence the drugs found in
McGrane’s home inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means,
we find the inevitable discovery doctrine inapplicable. We now consider the
independent source rule.
16
The State argues the evidence is admissible because it was also
discovered via a valid search warrant. McGrane argues the search warrant
was not an independent source because the affidavit supporting the
warrant application was based in part on tainted information (e.g. the
presence of drugs in the upstairs portion of the home and McGrane’s
admission).
The Supreme Court in Murray created a test to determine whether a
search pursuant to a warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of
illegally obtained information and tangible evidence. It held a subsequent
search warrant is not an independent source “if the agents’ decision to seek
the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during the initial entry, or
if information obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate
and affected his decision to issue the warrant.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 542,
108 S. Ct. at 2536, 101 L. Ed. 2d at 483–84.
To determine whether the information based on the deputies’ illegal
search affected the magistrate’s decision to issue the search warrant, we
excise the illegally obtained information from the warrant application and
determine whether the remaining legally obtained information supports
probable cause. United States v. Madrid, 152 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (8th Cir.
1998); accord Seager, 571 N.W.2d at 212 n.5. Without the illegally obtained
information, Investigator Wernet’s affidavit alleged the following: “Deputy
Hepperly received information from a concerned citizen around the first part
of July that McGrane was selling drugs and trading drugs for stolen
property.” Deputy Hepperly was watching the house on July 13, the day
before McGrane’s arrest, and saw “short term traffic to the residence.” One
of these persons was Tom Evans, whom Deputy Hepperly knew to be a drug
user. When questioned, Evans’s companion told Deputy Hepperly they had
gone to the house to buy drugs. On July 14, Deputy Klunder was
17
serveilling McGrane’s house in order to catch him at home and arrest him
on an outstanding warrant. Deputy Klunder learned through Alberto that
McGrane was at the house. Deputy Klunder asked Deputies Hepperly and
Ewalt to go to the house and arrest McGrane. While inside, Deputy
Hepperly saw McGrane put something behind the bed sheet curtain as he
emerged from an upstairs area of the home. McGrane’s criminal history
included a 1995 conviction for delivery of drugs and a 2004 conviction for
possession.
“The standard for probable cause is whether a person of reasonable
prudence would believe a crime has been committed or that evidence of a
crime might be located in the particular area to be searched.” Naujoks, 637
N.W.2d at 108 (citing State v. Poulin, 620 N.W.2d 287, 290 (Iowa 2000)).
With the exception of McGrane’s criminal history, all of the information in
the application was very recent and strongly suggested drug-dealing
activity. McGrane’s furtive gesture behind the bed sheet curtain at the top
of the steps indicated he was attempting to hide something from the
deputies. We find the above information is sufficient for probable cause.
Under Murray, we must also determine whether the deputies’
“decision to seek the warrant was prompted by what they had seen during
the initial entry.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 542, 108 S. Ct. at 2536, 101
L. Ed. 2d at 483. In its ruling, the district court found the State presented
no evidence the deputies would have applied for the search warrant had
they not searched the upstairs portion of McGrane’s home. We scoured the
record and found no such evidence either. We agree with the district court
that the State failed to prove the search warrant was an independent
source. 4 Consequently, the district court correctly suppressed all evidence
seized in McGrane’s home as well as his statements to the police.
4The State argues suppressing the evidence would place it in a “worse position” than
18
IV. Conclusion
We conclude the district court properly suppressed the evidence
seized and McGrane’s statements to the police. The deputies’ initial search
of the upstairs portion of the home without a search warrant violated
McGrane’s Fourth Amendment rights. The search was neither a search
incident to arrest nor a protective sweep. Moreover, the evidence was not in
plain view because the deputies were not rightfully in the place that allowed
them to see the evidence. Finally, the State failed to prove the later
obtained search warrant was in fact a genuinely independent source of the
evidence at issue here. The State presented no information indicating the
deputies would have sought a search warrant had they not illegally
searched the upstairs area.
AFFIRMED.
________________________
if it had not engaged in the prior unlawful search in contravention to the independent
source doctrine. However, if the State cannot prove the deputies would have applied for a
warrant, then they are not prejudiced by suppressing the evidence found and the
incriminating statements made by McGrane.