State of Minnesota, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1833

State of Minnesota,
Appellant,

vs.

Cain Buster Waltermann,
Respondent.

Filed May 6, 2019
Reversed and remanded
Florey, Judge

Blue Earth County District Court
File No. 07-CR-18-2970

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

Patrick R. McDermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Susan B. DeVos, Assistant County
Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota (for appellant)

Mark D. Kelly, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Florey, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FLOREY, Judge
In this pretrial appeal from the district court’s order suppressing evidence obtained
from two related searches of respondent’s residence, the state argues that the district court
erred by concluding that the warrant applications failed to establish a nexus between

2
respondent’s residence and the controlled-substance evidence sought . Because the
applications established a sufficient nexus and the judges issuing the search warrants had
a substantial basis from which to find probable cause, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
This case concerns two related search warrants executed at respondent Cain Buster
Waltermann’s residence in Amboy, Minnesota. Both searches resulted in the discovery of
suspected methamphetamine.
On July 11, 2018, Officer Kevin Waterstreet applied for the first warrant. His
application stated that, on July 10, 2018, he spoke with Lieutenant Jeremy Brennan about
a “traffic stop” north of Amboy. Brennan stopped a truck driven by J.R., who Brennan
knew from previous methamphetamine-related arrests. Brennan ran the license plate and
discovered that the truck belonged to respondent. J.R. told Brennan that he was in the
process of buying the truck and had left respondent’s residence prior to the stop.
While talking with J.R., Brennan saw two glass pipes containing crystalline residue.
He had J.R. exit the vehicle, and he performed a pat search. During this time, respondent
arrived to provide proof of insurance. Respondent asked if he could take the truck, Brennan
said no, and respondent left. Brennan searched the truck and located a backpack
containing: 37.4 grams of a leafy substance, presumably marijuana; 42.9 grams (packaged
weight) of brown powder , which field-tested positive as methamphetamine; two vials of
white powder containing 22 grams (packaged weight) of field -tested methamphetamine;
various paraphernalia; a digital scale; and approximately 33.6 grams of field -tested

3
methamphetamine in a plastic bag, an amount that Waterstreet believed was indicative of
narcotics sales.
Waterstreet stated in the warrant application that he believed J.R. got the 33.6 grams
“from [ respondent’s] residence” because J.R. told Brennan “that’s where he had come
from.” Waterstreet noted in the application that respondent’s “criminal history includes
numerous controlled substance possession and sales violatio ns including [fifth -]degree
possession, [third-]degree sales, and [second -]degree sales.” Waterstreet also noted that
the Minnesota River Valley Drug Task Force had “received numerous anonymous tips
from concerned citizens about [ respondent] being involve d in controlled substance sales
and use.” Waterstreet therefore believed that drug use and sales were occurring at
respondent’s residence.
On July 11, 2018, a judge issued the first search warrant, but it was not executed
until six days later. During that search, officers discovered suspected methamphetamine.
After the first search was completed , Officer Jeff Wersal applied , that day, for a second
search warrant to search respondent’s residence. The second application noted that
execution of the first w arrant was delayed because law enforcement was informed that
respondent “had sold his last amount of meth and was obtaining more over the weekend of
July 14-15.” The second application stated the following:
During execution of the [first] warrant agents located 28.9
grams of a crystal substance field tested positive for
methamphetamine. The purported meth was found in three
separate plastic bags which were hidden in unusual places.
Your [a]ffiant and Agent [C.R.] are also familiar with
[respondent] and know him to hide drugs in unusual places.

4
Your [a]ffiant also observed that the bedrooms upstairs in the
home were currently being remodeled.

After the search warrant was complete and agents had
left the hom e your [a]ffaint rec[ei]ved a call from Tri City
Police Chief Ryan Jordan. Chief Jordan advised your [a]ffiant
that [S.R.M.], contacted Chief Jordan with information.
[S.R.M.] stated to Chief Jordan that she has a child in common
with [ respondent]. [S.R .M.] stated that [ respondent] was
remodeling the upstairs bedrooms and had recently showed
[S.R.M.] and their daughter a hidden compartment [he] had
built in the floor of an upstairs [bedroom closet].

Your [a]ffiant believes that [ respondent] built the
aforementioned compartment in order to conceal contraband
such as controlled substances and seeks the courts permission
to re-enter [respondent’s residence] in Amboy to look for the
hidden compartment . . . .

A different judge issued the second search warrant. During the second search, more
suspected methamphetamine was discovered in a secret compartment. The state charged
respondent with 12 drug-related counts. He moved to suppress the evidence obtained via
the search warrants.
In November 2018, the district court granted respondent’s motion and dismissed all
of the charges. Regarding the first search warrant, the district court concluded that there
was insufficient information in the application “to find a nexus between criminal activity
and [respondent’s] residence.” The court noted that there was no indication that J.R. went
inside of respondent’s residence, the veracity and timeliness of the anonymous tips could
not be determined, and the “temporal nexus” of respondent’s prior convictions coul d not
be assessed “as no information was provided about said violations .” The district court
examined the second warrant in light of the tainted evidence from the first and concluded

5
that there was “scant information upon which to determine probable cause .” The court
acknowledged the information from S.R.M. about the hidden compartment, but concluded
that there was no “information that [ respondent] was keeping narcotics in any such
compartment.” This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
In a pretrial appeal, the state must establish that the alleged error of the district court,
unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of a trial. Minn. R. Crim. P.
28.04, subd. 2. An error critically impacts a trial ’s outcome if it significantly reduces the
likelihood of a conviction. State v. Aubid, 591 N.W.2d 472, 477 (Minn. 1999). “Dismissal
of a charge has a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Myers, 711 N.W.2d
113, 115 (Minn. App. 2006), aff’d, State v. Melde , 725 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 2006). The
district court’s order, which dismissed all of the charges against respondent, had a critical
impact. We therefore move to the crux of the matter, the sufficiency of the warrant
applications.
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prot ect citizens from unreasonable
searches and seizures, providing that no warrant shall be issued without a showing of
probable cause. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 10. Probable cause exists
when “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) (quotation omitted).
“Probable cause n ot only requires that the evidence sought likely exists, but also
that there is a fair probability that the evidence will be found at the specific site to be
searched.” Id. That is, “[a] sufficient ‘nexus’ must be established between the evidence

6
sought and the place to be searched ,” but this nexus “ may be inferred from the totality of
the circumstances.” Id. In determining whether a sufficient nexus exists, “information
linking the crime to the place to be searched and the freshness of the inf ormation” are
relevant factors, as well as “[t] he reliability of the source of the information .” State v.
Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Minn. 1998). In drug cases, the supreme court has “drawn a
distinction between a drug wholesaler and a casual user ,” and noted that “[i]t may be
reasonable to infer that drug wholesalers keep drugs at their residences, but such an
inference, without more, is unwarranted for casual users.” Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d at 623
(quotation omitted).
In reviewing the issuance of a search war rant, we must determine whether the
issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. State v.
Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d 802, 804 (Minn. 2001); State v. Zanter , 535 N.W.2d 624, 633
(Minn. 1995). Our review is limited to the totality of the circumstances presented in the
warrant application and supporting affidavit. State v. Fawcett , 884 N.W.2d 380, 384 -85
(Minn. 2016). We afford great deference to an issuing judge’s assessment of probable
cause in connection with the issuance of a search warrant. Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d at 804;
Zanter, 535 N.W.2d at 633.
We begin with the first search warrant. The relevant circumstances set forth in the
warrant application included the large quantity of drugs in the truck, respondent’s
ownership of the truck, the plainly observable paraphernalia in the truck, J.R.’s statement
that he was coming from respondent’s residence, respondent’s arrival during the stop and
request to take the truck, respondent’s prior convictions, and the anonymous tips indicating

7
that respondent was involved in controlled -substance sales . While each circumstance,
viewed in isolation, might be deficient, “a collection of pieces of information that would
not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient pro bable cause.” State v. Jones,
678 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2004). Considering the totality of the circumstances, in light of
the deferential standard of review, we conclude that the grounds asserted in the first
application create a substantial basis for the issuing judge to find a fair probability that
controlled substances would be located at respondent’s residence.
The district court concluded that there was no nexus between the controlled
substances sought and respondent’s residence. On appeal, respo ndent echoes this
conclusion. Although we acknowledge that this is a close case, and the warrant application
could have been more precisely drafted, we disagree. “[D]irect observation of evidence of
a crime at the place to be searched is not required ,” and “[a] nexus may be inferred from
the totality of the circumstances.” Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d at 622. Here, the circumstances
created a sufficient connection between the narcotics sought and respondent’s residence.
It is reasonable to infer that the drugs located in the truck were J.R.’s, and respondent sold
some or all of them to J.R., or the drugs were actually respondent’s, considering that
respondent requested to take possession of his truck containing the controlled substances
prior to the discovery by law enforcement. Either way, these circumstances, combined
with respondent’s criminal history1 and the anonymous tips, indicated that respondent was

1 “A person’s criminal record is among the circumstances a judge may consider when
determining whether probable cause exists for a search warrant,” however, a criminal
record is best used “as corroborative information and not as the sole basis for probable
cause.” State v. Carter, 697 N.W.2d 199, 205 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

8
a drug wholesaler. It may be reasonable to infer that a drug wholesaler keeps drugs at his
residence, and beyond that, J.R. admitted to leaving respondent’s residence prior to the
stop. Id. at 623. The totality of the circumstances establish a sufficient nexus.
Having determined that the first search warrant was valid, we conclude that the
second search warrant was valid as well. According to the second application, n early 30
grams of field-tested methamphetamine was discovered during the first search, hidden in
unusual places, and subsequent information indicated the existence of a hidden
compartment in an upstairs bedroom. Given these circumstances, the issuing judge had a
substantial basis from which to conclude that there was a fair probability that controlled
substances would be found in the hidden compartment.
Reversed and remanded.