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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-2088

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Isiah Kente Shivers,
Appellant.

Filed August 26, 2019
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CR-17-3632

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

James C. Backstrom, Dakota County Attorney, Evan W. Frazier, As sistant County
Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent)

Kristian L. Oyen, Savage, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Cl eary, Chief Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Appellant Isiah Kente Shivers challenges his convictions for t hird-degree
possession of a controlled substance and child endangerment, ar guing that the search

2
warrant authorizing a search of his residence was not supported by probable cause. We
affirm.
FACTS
On August 31, 2017, Officer John Mott of the Burnsville Police Department applied
for, and received, a search warrant to search Shivers’s residence for controlled substances,
items related to the manufacture and distribution of controlled substances, currency,
firearms, and items of identification.
In his supporting affidavit, O fficer Mott explained that a Uni ted States postal
inspector contacted him that day regarding three suspicious packages. The postal inspector
informed Officer Mott that the p ackages were addressed to “Josh ua Shavers” at “15251
Greenhaven Drive Apartment #247” in Burnsville. In determining that the packages were
suspicious, the postal inspector relayed that the parcels were sent via priority mail from
California, the names of the listed recipient and sender were n ot associated with the
recipient or sender addresses, r espectively, and each of the pa ckages weighed more than
10 pounds.
After receiving this informati on, an officer spoke with manage ment for the
apartment complex listed on the package. Management informed the officer that they have
witnessed frequent “short term traffic” to and from the listed apartment; management also
described suspicious people leaving the unit and “carrying duffle bags.”
Officer Mott requested that the Dakota County Drug Task Force conduct a narcotics
sniff of the three packages. A drug-task-force officer and his canine partne r, a trained
narcotics-detection dog, checked the packages for the presence of a narcotic odor; the dog

3
positively alerted to the presence of a narcotic odor in each o f the three packages. In his
application for the search warra nt, Officer Mott requested to s earch the listed apartment
“[i]f anyone in the residence accepts the packages addressed to Joshua Shavers.” A Dakota
County District Court judge signed the search warrant at 1:32 p.m. that afternoon.
Later that afternoon, the Dakot a County Drug Task Force conduc ted a controlled
delivery of the three packages. S hivers retrieved the packages and brought them back to
his apartment unit—the same unit listed on the packages. Agents then executed the search
warrant. Upon entering the unit, agents smelled an extremely strong odor of raw marijuana
and observed Shivers flee the apartment through a stairwell toward the parking garage. As
he fled, one of the packages fell out of his backpack. Awaiting agents apprehended Shivers.
During the search of the residence, agents discovered a large amount of marijuana
and THC substances in edible, leaf, and oil form. The search a lso yielded drug
paraphernalia and packaging items, a firearm and ammunition, mu ltiple cell phones, and
$5,720. The street value of the THC items was estimated to be approximately $17,000.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Shivers with second-degr ee sale of a
controlled-substance, third-deg ree possession of a controlled s ubstance, child
endangerment, and ineligible possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, Shivers moved to
suppress evidence, asserting that the search warrant for his ho me was not supported by
probable cause. The district court denied Shivers’s motion.
The parties agreed that the pretrial suppression order was dis positive of the case and
stipulated to facts, pursuant to Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, to preserve the issue for
appellate review. Based on the stipulated facts, the district court found Shivers guilty of

4
third-degree possession of a controlled substance and child end angerment. The district
court convicted Shivers and sentenced him to a 30-month term on the controlled-substance
offense, with a concurrent 365-day term on the child-endangerme nt offense. This appeal
follows.
D E C I S I O N
Shivers argues that the search warrant authorizing a search of his residence was not
supported by probable cause. The United States and Minnesota C onstitutions protect the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, pape rs, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 10. A
search warrant may be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate only upon a finding of
probable cause. State v. Harris, 589 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Minn. 1999). When determining
whether probable cause supports the issuance of a search warrant, we do not engage in de
novo review. State v. McGrath, 706 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied
(Minn. Feb. 22, 2006). Instead, our “only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a
substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Fawcett, 884 N.W.2d
380, 384 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). A substantial basis in this context means a
“fair probability,” given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of
a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624, 633 (Minn.
1995) (quotation omitted). We a fford great deference to the is suing judge’s finding of
probable cause. State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 268 (Minn. 1985).
Our review “is limited to the i nformation presented in the war rant application and
supporting affidavit.” Fawcett, 884 N.W.2d at 384-85. “[Appellate courts] must consider

5
the totality of the circumstances alleged in the supporting affidavit and must be careful not
to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” Id. at 385 (quotation omitted).
“[T]he critical question is whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the
affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in belie ving that the items sought
were located at the pl ace to be searched.” State v. Ruoho, 685 N.W.2d 451, 456 (Minn.
App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Nov. 16, 2004).
Based on its review of the affidavit, the district court concl uded that the issuing
judge correctly determined that p robable cause supported the wa rrant. In reaching this
conclusion, the district court no ted that the narcotics sniff o f the three packages
corroborated the suspicions of the postal inspector. The district court further reasoned that
police had knowledge of short-term traffic at the residence where the packages were to be
delivered. Given these facts, the district court determined that the search-warrant affidavit
supplied a direct connection between the crime alleged, the pos session and sale of illegal
drugs, and the place to be searched, Shivers’s residence.
Shivers argues that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because the
application “lacks certain deta ils, and expresses generalities which make it less than
facially valid.” Specifically, Shivers points to four facts co ntained in the affidavit that he
asserts are too vague to support a finding of probable cause: ( 1) that the sender used
priority-service shipping for the packages; (2) that the packages were sent from California;
(3) that the sender and recipient of the packages were not associated with either the sender
or recipient addresses; and (4) that each of the three packages weighed over 10 pounds.

6
While each circumstance listed by Shivers, viewed in isolation, may be insufficient
to establish probable cause, “a collection of pieces of informa tion that would not be
substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cau se.” State v. Jones , 678
N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 2004). Moreover, in addition to listing th e four facts outlined by
Shivers, the affidavit also incl uded information that the packa ges smelled like raw
marijuana. And during the narcotics sniff, the narcotics-detec tion dog alerted to the
presence of narcotics in all three packages, supporting a belief that the packages contained
evidence of the possession and distribution of narcotics. Finally, following the controlled
delivery, officers observed Shiver s retrieve the three packages from the apartment
complex’s package area and take them back to his apartment—the listed recipient address.
Although Shivers does not explicitly argue that the search war rant failed to establish
a nexus between drug activity and his residence, he does suggest this case is similar to State
v. Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744 (Minn. 1998). Souto involved a search-warrant application to
search a residence, and the affi davit sought to establish that Souto was a drug trafficker
and therefore likely to have drugs or information pertaining to drug deals in her residence,
based in part on information that a package containing drugs wa s mailed to her from
California ten months prior, although she never received the package. Id. As in this case,
the warrant application in Souto did not state whether Souto lived at or frequented the
residence to be searched. Id. at 747. However, the court did not focus on this failure in its
decision. Instead, the court explained that the search warrant application failed to establish
a nexus between Souto’s alleged drug activity and her residence. Id. at 745.

7
In this case, the affidavit established a nexus between the cr iminal activity and the
residence to be searched. Officer Mott’s affidavit stated that management had frequently
observed “short term traffic” at the listed apartment and further described suspicious people
leaving the apartment and “carry ing duffle bags.” In addition, the search-warrant
application here only sought aut horization to execute a narcoti cs search warrant should
anyone from the listed apartment unit accept the packages addressed to “Joshua Shavers.”
And after officers conducted a controlled delivery of the packa ges to the apartment
complex, Shivers retrieved the packages and brought them back to his apartment. Although
the warrant application could have been more precisely drafted, considering the totality of
the circumstances and the deferential standard of review, the issuing judge had a substantial
basis to conclude that the suspi cious packages would be found a t the listed recipient
address. The district court did not err in denying Shivers’s motion to suppress.
Affirmed.