Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-11-03342/USCOURTS-ca8-11-03342-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zachary James Kruse
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 11-3342

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Zachary James Kruse

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: October 10, 2014

 Filed: March 5, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925 
Zachary Kruse appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to 1

suppress evidence of a firearm used to prove the government's charge that he was a

felon in possession of a firearm. We affirm. 

I. Background

In early 2010, the Mitchell County Sheriff's Office began surveillance of

Kruse's apartment, suspecting Kruse sold marijuana. At the outset, officers observed

several cars that belonged to known or suspected drug users on the street parked

outside of Kruse's apartment after business hours. Officers also saw these people

coming out of Kruse's apartment. Officers searched five trash bags, suspected to be

Kruse's, that were placed on the sidewalk under Kruse's second story apartment. This

"trash rip" revealedmarijuana seeds, marijuana stems, and documents bearing Kruse's

name.

The primary officer leading the investigation submitted these and other facts

2

in an affidavit and obtained a warrant to search Kruse's apartment for several items,

including drugs, drug paraphernalia, other evidence that would support drug dealing

activity, and "[f]irearms and ammunition." The warrant was issued by a magistrate

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.

A few days later, officers arrested Noah Juenger, who wasfound in possession 2

of marijuana and a marijuana pipe. Juenger admitted to officers that he had recently

come from Kruse's apartment. Next, seven days after the first trash search, officers

searched another two bags of trash suspected to be Kruse's and found more marijuana

seeds and stems. Officers then talked to the owner of the store on the first floor of the

building where Kruse's apartment was located. The owner of the store told officers

that Kruse rented the apartment above the store and that Kruse usually left his trash

on the sidewalk once a week for trash pickup. The owner stated that the trash for the

store is usually put in a box, supporting the officers' belief that the trash bags that

they searched belonged to Kruse. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925 
judge on March 4, 2010, but officers did not conduct the search until March 8 in

order to wait until other suspects were present in the apartment. Additionally, the

small sheriff's office needed to wait until its officers' schedules aligned to have the

necessary manpower to execute the warrant.

3

Ultimately, the officers found marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and a

semi-automatic rifle with ammunition in a gun case; the rifle was found in Kruse's

bedroom closet. The rifle belonged to Peter Lee Short, who told police that Kruse

gave him permission to leave the rifle in the apartment, which Kruse confirmed. 

The government charged Kruse with one count of being a felon in possession

of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1). Kruse moved to suppress the

evidence of the firearm. A magistrate judge recommended the motion be denied, and

the district court agreed after a de novo review. The district court rejected Kruse's

arguments that the warrant lacked probable cause, that the four-day delay in executing

the warrant dissipated any probable cause that existed at the time the warrant was

issued, and that the warrant was overbroad in allowing the search for firearms.

After the court denied Kruse's motion to suppress, he pleaded guilty to the

government's charge, and the district court sentenced Kruse to 57 months'

imprisonment. Kruse now brings this appeal challenging the district court's denial of

his motion to suppress.

II. Discussion

A. Probable Cause

On appeal, Kruse first argues that the search warrant was not supported by

probable cause. In an appeal of a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we

The Mitchell County Sheriff's Office employed five law enforcement officers 3

at the time of this investigation. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925 
review the court'sfindings of fact for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.

See United States v. Jones, 535 F.3d 886, 889–90 (8th Cir. 2008). Whether a warrant

is supported by probable cause is a legal determination and is based on whether the

warrant is supported by facts that would "justify a prudent person in the belief that

there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a

particular place." United States v. Riedesel, 987 F.2d 1383, 1390 (8th Cir. 1993)

(citations omitted).

Kruse argues that the search warrant lacks probable cause because the officer's

affidavit did not specify the quantity of marijuana seeds and stems that officersfound

in Kruse's trash. Kruse contends that drug users readily use all of the drugs in their

possession in a short period of time; therefore, the specific quantity of seeds and

stems found in the trash would be necessary to establish whether there would be

drugs present at the time of the search. Kruse's argument fails. Law enforcement

obtained the warrant on the belief that Kruse was using and selling drugs. Several

facts presented in the affidavit, including the observation of cars belonging to known

drug users being parked outside Kruse's apartment, supported law enforcement's

belief that drugs were being used and sold in the apartment. Accordingly, if Kruse

were selling drugs, he would likely have a supply on hand to service customers,

which would support the belief that drugs would be present in the apartment at the

time of the search. 

Also, the two trash searchesseven days apartsupport the conclusion that drugs

were consistently present in Kruse's apartment. Therefore, the quantity of marijuana

seeds or stems found in Kruse's trash is not crucial. The repeated presence of the

seeds and stems sufficiently establishes probable cause supporting the potential

presence of drugs in the apartment at the time of the search.

Finally, Kruse ignores that several facts in the affidavit support the probable

cause for the search warrant. The marijuana seeds and stems discovery was only one.

-4-

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925 
As the federal magistrate judge cogently noted, the affidavit provided the issuing

magistrate ample information, including

(1) during the prior months, deputies had witnessed numerous vehicles

in front of [Kruse]'s apartment after business hours; (2) some of the

vehicles belonged to known orsuspected drug users; (3) persons coming

from [Kruse]'s apartment were seen getting into the vehicles; (4) on

February 24, 2010, a trash rip in front of [Kruse]'s apartment yielded

marijuana seeds and stems, together with documents identifying [Kruse];

(5) on March 1, 2010, a person walking near [Kruse]'s apartment was

approached by a deputy for having an open container of alcohol. The

person had a strong odor of marijuana smoke about him, and marijuana

and a marijuana pipe was found on his person. The subject said he had

just come from [Kruse]'s apartment; (6) on March 3, 2010, a second

trash rip revealed additional marijuana seeds and steps [sic], with a

handwritten note to a person identified as [Kruse]'s roommate; (7) later

the same day, the owner of the property identified [Kruse] as the tenant

of the apartment; (8) the property owner told law enforcement that the

renters are instructed to put their garbage on the sidewalk in front of the

building; (9) [Kruse] had been under investigation for several years and

is a known drug user; and (10) [Kruse] has four prior drug-related

convictions, with the last conviction approximately 2-1/2 years earlier.

United States v. Kruse, No. CR 11-2019, 2011 WL 1871237, at *4 (N.D. Iowa May

16, 2011). Therefore, we conclude the evidence presented in the affidavit sufficiently

supports probable cause that contraband would be present in Kruse's apartment at the

time of the search. 

B. Dissipation of Probable Cause

Alternatively, Kruse contends that the warrant lacked probable cause on the

grounds that the four-day delay in executing the warrant dissipating any probable

cause that existed at the time the warrant was issued. We disagree. We have held

similar delays did not cause probable cause to dissipate. In United States v. Tenerelli,

-5-

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925 
614 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2010) we found that a six-day delay between issuance and

execution of a search warrant did not dissipate probable cause because "[i]t was

reasonable for the officers to conclude that [the defendant] was likely to possess

[drugs] at his residence when the search warrant was executed" because of "[t]he

ongoing nature of [drug] distribution." Id. at 770–71; see also United States v.

Shegog, 787 F.2d 420, 423 (8th Cir. 1986) (finding that an eight-day delay from

issuance of a search warrant to execution of the search did not dissipate probable

cause). As we noted above, the finding of marijuana seeds and stems in Kruse's trash

on two separate occasions seven days apart supports the conclusion that drugs were

present and used consistently in Kruse's apartment. Thus, it would be reasonable for

officers, and the issuing magistrate, to believe that contraband would be present in

Kruse's apartment a mere four days after the issuance of the warrant. 

C. Overbreadth of the Warrant

Next,Kruse argues that the warrant was overbroad because it permitted officers

to search for firearms when there was no evidence in the affidavit of firearm

ownership or trafficking. It is well established that a search warrant for evidence

allows law enforcement to search anything or anywhere on the premises where that

evidence might be. "If [law enforcement officers] are looking for a canary's corpse,

they can search a cupboard, but not a locket. If they are looking for an adolescent

hippopotamus, they can search the living room or garage but not the microwave

oven." United States v. Evans, 92 F.3d 540, 543 (7th Cir. 1996). In United States v.

Nichols, 344 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam), for example, firearms that were

found under a suspect's mattress were not subject to suppression under the plain view

doctrine, even though the search warrant did not authorize the officers to look for

firearms. Id. at 798–99; see also United States v. Weinbender, 109 F.3d 1327, 1329

(8th Cir. 1997) (upholding the denial of a motion to suppress a silencer under the

plain view doctrine after police removed a picture from a wall, removed dry wall,

moved two pieces of wood stuck between beams in the wall, and used a flashlight to

see and recover the silencer). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925 
On these facts, the inclusion of firearms in the warrant had no effect upon the

actual discovery of the firearms because they were observed in plain view during an

authorized search for drugs. Officers were authorized to search in Kruse's bedroom

closet because marijuana, paraphernalia, and other drug related evidence could have

been stored there. Upon finding the gun case, officers were authorized to look inside 4

the case because drugs could be stored inside the case. Upon seeing the gun, officers

were authorized to seize it under the plain view doctrine because they were

authorized to search the gun case, the firearm was in plain sight, and the firearm's

incriminating nature would have been immediately apparent given the officers'

knowledge of Kruse's prior drug convictions. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Kruse's motion to

suppress.5

______________________________

Kruse also argues that the failure of a drug sniffing K-9 unit to indicate drugs

4

in his bedroom should have prevented the officers from searching in his bedroom for

drugs. Kruse fails to realize, however, that the officers were searching for more than

drugs, but also evidence that a K-9 unit would not be able to smell. The warrant

included the search of such evidence as drug paraphernalia, books, records, notes,

photos, telephone books, and a host of other evidence that would indicate drug use

and drug dealing at the apartment. Further, our holding in United States v. Lakoskey,

462 F.3d 965, 977 (8th Cir. 2006), where two negative drug sniffs still did not dispel

reasonable suspicion of the presence of drugs, provides that the failure of a K-9 unit

to smell drugs does not foreclose or limit a search. 

Given our affirmance on the grounds stated in this opinion, we need not

5

address Kruse's argument regarding whether the good-faith exception to probable

cause articulated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applies.

-7-

Appellate Case: 11-3342 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/05/2015 Entry ID: 4250925