Date: 09-16-2024

Case Style:

State of Minnesota v. Breanna Rae Enno

Case Number: 72-CR-3-26202

Judge: Not Available

Court: District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota

Plaintiff's Attorney: Hennepin County, Minnesota District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Minneapolis, Minnesota, first-degree drug possession criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

Breanna Rae Enno is charged with a first-degree drug-possession crime based on evidence that she possessed several hundred fentanyl pills. She moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that a warrant authorizing a search of her home was not supported by probable cause. The district court granted her motion, and the state appeals. We conclude that the district court erred by granting Enno's motion because the search-warrant application established a nexus between Enno's drug-dealing and her home.

* * *

In July 2023, a confidential informant told law-enforcement officers that a woman was selling fentanyl throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area by using a Facebook Messenger account with the profile name of Breanna Enno. Officers confirmed that a Facebook photograph of the woman matched Enno's government-issued identification card. Between September and December of 2023, the informant purchased fentanyl pills from Enno in a controlled buy that was coordinated by officers. Thereafter an undercover officer purchased fentanyl from Enno on two occasions. For one of those transactions with the undercover officer, Enno drove to and from the agreed-upon location in a silver Chevrolet Impala, which was registered to her.

Officers learned at some point that, in August 2023, Enno had started a two-year term of probation for a conviction of a felony-level drug-related crime. Officers also learned that Enno lived in a particular apartment at a particular address in northeast Minneapolis. Officers spoke with the owner of the apartment building and learned that Enno was one of two renters who had signed a lease for the apartment. In October 2023, an officer saw Enno's vehicle parked at the apartment building. A detective applied for and obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracker on Enno's vehicle. The GPS tracker was installed and was monitored for several weeks, during which time the vehicle was parked at the apartment building "almost nightly." Twice in November 2023, a detective sought and obtained a warrant to swab the exterior of the door to Enno's apartment. Both swabs, gathered two weeks apart, indicated the presence of cocaine.

On December 6, 2023, a police detective applied for a warrant to search Enno's person, vehicle, and apartment. The warrant application recited the above-stated facts and the detective's belief that Enno was using her apartment "to store narcotics and/or narcotics proceeds" and his belief that "evidence of narcotics sales" were located in the apartment. The application sought a warrant authorizing the seizure of "fentanyl and all other controlled substances," drug paraphernalia, various types of records and documents, cell phones, electronic media and storage devices, and various other things. A district court judge approved the application and issued the warrant that same day.

Officers executed the search warrant at Enno's apartment the next morning, while she was present. Officers seized blue pills in six containers from three locations inside the apartment. Officers arrested Enno and transported her to a county jail. While at the jail, Enno admitted to officers that additional pills were hidden in her vaginal area. Under the supervision of female jail staff, Enno removed three plastic baggies, which contained 668
blue pills, weighing a total of 72.51 grams. Chemical testing confirmed that the pills contained fentanyl.

The state charged Enno with a first-degree controlled substance crime, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 2(a)(3) (Supp. 2023), based on an allegation that she possessed 25 or more grams, or 100 or more doses, of fentanyl. In March 2024, Enno moved to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of the search warrant. She argued, among other things, that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause with respect to her apartment because the warrant application did not establish a nexus between her suspected drug crime and her apartment. In April 2024, the district court filed an order in which it granted Enno's motion. The district court suppressed "all evidence obtained through the search of Ms. Enno's residence and discovered through the execution of the search warrant at her address." The state appeals.

* * *


The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" and states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. "Probable cause exists if the judge issuing a warrant determines that 'there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.'" State v. Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d 619, 622 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). Whether probable cause exists is a "practical, common-sense decision" based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 622-23. In reviewing an issuing judge's probablecause determination, this court gives the issuing judge "great deference" and seeks to determine whether there was "a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." State v. Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d 802, 804 (Minn. 2001).

The Fourth Amendment's probable-cause requirement ensures not only that the evidence sought by a warrant application likely exists "but also that there is a fair probability that the evidence will be found at the specific site to be searched." Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d at 622. Accordingly, a warrant application must establish a "nexus" between "the evidence sought and the place to be searched." Id. To satisfy the nexus requirement, officers need not observe evidence of a crime at the place to be searched. Id. The required nexus "may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances." Id. The relevant circumstances include "the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the defendant's opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the defendant would usually keep the items." Id. at 623.

* * *

Outcome: Thus, the district court erred by granting Enno's motion to suppress evidence. Therefore, we reverse the order suppressing evidence and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

State v. Enno, A24-0673 (Minn. App. Sep 16, 2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: