A police officer's drug detection dog alerted at the threshold of defendant's apartment door, and police then obtained a warrant to search the apartment. The search revealed two bullets and a scale that tested positive for a trace amount of methamphetamine. After the State charged defendant with 5th degree controlled substance crime and possession of ammunition as a ineligible person, defendant successfully moved the trial court to suppress the evidence, arguing that the dog sniff leading to the warrant violated his constitutional rights. The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe defendant's apartment contained methamphetamine, noting that the dog sniff did not arise from a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Affirmed.
State v. Weyker, A18-0786, Dakota County.
Lynne Torgerson, Esq. was not attorney of record in this case.