State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-1636

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Keenon Lamar Bowlds,
Appellant.

Filed June 10, 2019
Affirmed
Slieter, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-17-11517

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Nicole Cornale , Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Steven J. Mes hbesher, Meshbesher & Associates, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Schellhas,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
SLIETER, Judge
This appeal is from a final judgment of conviction following a stipulated facts trial
under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, preserving review of a motion to suppress evidence

2
following a narcotic -detection dog sniff. Appellant Keenon Lamar Bowlds argues the
district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless
narcotic-detection dog sniff in the hallway of his secured apartment building. We affirm.
FACTS
In October 2016, law enforcement received information from a cooperating
defendant (CD) that a mal e was dealing marijuana and marijuana derivatives. CD
identified the male as K-Bo. CD provided K-Bo’s physical description, address, and phone
number. CD admitted he received marijuana oil or derivatives from K-Bo.
Law enforcement determined the phone number provided by CD was registered to
appellant. Further, law enforcement accessed information from the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety finding appellant ’s address and biographical data matched CD’s
information. CD also verified a booking photograph of appellant as K-Bo.
On October 24, 2016, a sergeant with the Northwest Metro Drug Taskforce
(NWMDTF) instructed a Plymouth Police Department officer to perform a narcotic -
detection dog sniff at appellant’s residence in a secured apartment building . Once the
officer reached appellant’s apartment door, he conducted a narcotic -detection dog sniff
with his canine partner, a dog certified in the detection of the odor of illegal narcotics. The
dog positively alerted to the presence of narcotics at appellant’s door. The sergeant with
NWMDTF verified with the apartment complex management that appellant was the tenant
of the apartment where the dog alerted.
On October 25, 2016, the NWMDTF submitted a search warrant application and
affidavit to the district court to search appellant’s residence, which the district court

3
granted. On November 1, 2016, members of the NWMDTF and Plymouth Police
Department executed the search warrant. Law enforcement seized: (1) 19 individually -
wrapped THC edibles containing 100 milligrams of THC for a total of 1,900 milligrams of
THC, (2) 312.72 grams of raw marijuana, (3) six grams of THC oil, and (4) $3,500 in U.S.
Currency. Law enforcement found a handgun near the controlled substances.
The state filed a complaint charging appellant with two counts of fifth-degree
possession of a controlled substance , in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 2(1)
(2016), with a firearm enhancement pursuant to section 609.11, subdivision 5(a) (2016).
The state amended the complaint to include one count of fifth-degree sale of a controlled
substance, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025, subd. 1(1) (2016) , with a firearm
enhancement pursuant to section 609.11, subdivision 5(a).
The district court denied appellant’s motion seeking to suppress evidence from the
search relying on this court’s decision in State v. Edstrom, 901 N.W.2d 455 (Minn. App.
2017), while the matter was on review before the supreme court . On May 7, 2018,
appellant agreed to a stipulated facts trial and also waived his right to a jury trial to address
the aggravated sentence pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subds. 1, 4. On May 18,
2018, the district court found appellant guilty of the three counts in the amended complaint
and the state proved the sen tencing enhancement pursuant to section 609.11, subdivision
5(a). The district court sentenced appellant to 180 days in the workhouse with credit for
one day served, but it stayed the sentence until resolution of this appeal.

4
D E C I S I O N
“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to
suppress de novo and ‘determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the
search or seizure at issue.’” State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. 2011) (quoting
State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 247-48 (Minn. 2007)). Appellant requests that we rule
contrary to the supreme court’s decision in State v. Edstrom, 916 N.W.2d 512 (Minn.
2018)—despite no factual distinctions from that case—to conclude the use of the narcotic-
detection dog sniff outside his apartment in a common hallway constituted a search under
the Fourth Amendment.
Appellant’s request conflicts with this court’s authority under the Minnesota
Constitution and case precedent. The Minnesota Const itution provides this court with
appellate jurisdiction “over all courts, except the supreme court, and all other appellate
jurisdiction as pro scribed by law.” Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2. This court “is bound by
supreme court precedent.” State v. Curtis , 921 N.W.2d 342, 34 6 (Minn. 2018); see also
State v. M.L.A. , 785 N.W.2d 763, 767 (Minn. App. 2010) (“The district court, like [the
court of appeals], is bound by supreme court precedent and the published opinions of the
court of appeals . . . .”), review denied (Minn. Sept. 21, 2010).
Appellant construes this court’s authority to reverse precedent when compelling
reasons provide us with a basis to do so also applies to supreme court precedent. Appellant
is mistaken. “We will only overrule our precedent if provided with a compelling reason to
do so.” Ariola v. City of Stillwater , 889 N.W.2d 340, 356 (Minn. App. 2017) (emphasis

5
added), review denied (Minn. Apr. 18, 2017). For the reasons already noted, this authority
extends only to our own precedent and not to the precedent of the supreme court.
The supreme court in Edstrom held a narcotic-detection dog sniff performed outside
a person’s apartment door in a common hallway constitutes a search under the Minnesota
Constitution. 916 N.W.2d at 522-24. The lone ground for potential relief here is pursuant
to the Minnesota Constitution, which requires reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal
activity to perform a narcotic-detection dog sniff—as long as law enforcement is lawfully
present where the sniff occurred. Id. at 523. There is reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity based on CD’s report and law enforcement corroborated the information obtained
from CD about appellant’s criminal conduct before conducting the dog sniff. State v.
Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 393 -94 (Minn. 2008); In re Welfare of G.M., 560 N.W.2d
687, 691 (Minn. 1997). Appellant failed to establish that law enforcement was not lawfully
present where the sniff occurred. Am. Family Life Ins. Co. v. Noruk, 528 N.W.2d 921, 925
(Minn. App. 1995) (recognizing failure to provide a transcript on appeal limits this court’s
review), review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1997). Accordingly and consistent with Edstrom,
the district court properly denied appellant’s motion to suppress.
Affirmed.