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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-2125

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Donald Michael Wiegel,
Appellant.

Filed December 30, 2019
Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge*

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-17-6917

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

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Thomas R. Ragatz, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, John Donovan, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Florey, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Appellant Donald Michael Wiegel challenges his conviction of first -degree
controlled-substance crime, arguing that the district court erred by denying his pretrial
motion to suppress evidence discovered during the execution of a search warrant because
the search-warrant application was not supported by probable cause. We affirm.
D E C I S I O N
The United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and
seizures by the government. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. Generally,
a search is lawful only if it is executed pursuant to a valid search warrant issued by a neutral
and detached magistrate after a finding of probable cause. State v. Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d
619, 622 (Minn. 2014). No warrant shall issue absent a showing of probable cause. U.S.
Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. When determining whether a search warrant
is supported by probable cause, appellate courts 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, “great deference must be given to the issuing [magistrate’s] determination of
probable cause.” State v. Valento , 405 N.W.2d 914, 918 (Minn. App. 1987). When
reviewing a decision to issue a search warrant, an appellate court limits its review to
whether the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for concludin g that probable cause

3
existed. Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d at 622. In doing so, appellate courts consider the “totality
of the circumstances.” State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 268 (Minn. 1985).
The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical,
common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances
set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity”
and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay
information, there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Id. (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)).
In January 2017, Deputy Jacob French of the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department
arrested a confidential informant (CI) who was on his way to purchase methamphetamine
from Wiegel. Based on the information he received from the CI, Deputy French applied
for, and was granted, a warrant for GPS tracking on Wiegel’s truck. Deputy French later
applied for and was granted a second warrant to search Wiegel’s h ome and truck . Law
enforcement executed the search warrant and discovered 380 grams of methamphetamine
and a firearm in Wiegel’s garage. Respondent State of Minnesota c harged Wiegel with
first-degree possession of a contro lled substance and possession of a firearm by an
ineligible person. Wiegel moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the first warrant
that authorized GPS tracking was not supported by probable caus e. The district court
denied the motion. Wiegel stipulated to the state’s case to preserve review of the pretrial
ruling on the motion to suppress, and the district court subsequently found Wiegel guilty
of first-degree controlled-substance crime but not guilty of possession of a firearm by an
ineligible person.

4
Wiegel argues that the first warrant was not supported by probable cause. He first
argues that the CI was not credible because he did not provide any information that was
not publicly available . There are six factors that are relevant in determining a CI’s
credibility. State v. Ross, 676 N.W.2d 301, 304 (Minn. App. 2004). Only two factors are
present here —the police were able to corroborate the information and the CI made a
statement against his interest—that he was en route to purchase methamphetamine. Id.
Wiegel argues that the CI only provided easily verifiable information, and therefore
the information that Deputy French corroborated does not establish probable cause. He
relies on State v. Albrecht, in which this court affirmed the district court’s grant of a motion
to suppress where the only information provided was the defendant’s address and
ownership of a truck. 465 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Minn. App. 1991). Here, the CI provided
additional information. The CI told Deputy French that Wiegel worked construction during
the summer, had a criminal history, and po ssessed a weapon. Deputy French confirmed
that Wiegel worked construction and had prior convictions for possession of a controll ed
substance and possession of a firearm by an in eligible person. An individual’s criminal
history is information that the district court may consider when determining whether to
issue a warrant. State v. Holiday, 749 N.W.2d 833, 844 (Minn. App. 2008).
Additionally, the CI directed Deputy French to an address in Maple Grove. Deputy
French then observed Wiegel ’s truck at this address, which was confirmed by another
officer to be the home of a known metham phetamine dealer. T he CI also provided the
basis for his knowledge—he was on his way to purchase methamphetamine from Wiegel.
The CI’s statement that he had previously observed large quantities of methamphetamine

5
in Wiegel’s truck supports the inference that he had purchased methamphetamine from
Wiegel in the past. See State v. Cook, 610 N.W.2d 664, 668 (Minn. App. 2000) (stating an
informant may supply first -hand information if he has purchased drugs from a suspect in
the past), review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000). On this record, we conclude t hat the
information corroborated by Deputy French was sufficient to render the CI’s information
credible.
Finally, Wiegel argues that there is no nexus between the controlled substances and
the truck or the truck’s movements and location. He argues that the information provided
does not support the inference that he used his vehicle to transport or distribute controlled
substances because the only information linking the truck with controlled substances is the
presence of the truck at the home of a known methamphetamine user. We disagree.
Wiegel’s truck was not observed at the home of a methamphetamine user, but rather the
home of a known methamphetamine dealer. Additionally, the search-warrant application
states that the CI has “seen large amounts of methamphetamine inside the [vehicle].” Thus,
the CI reported that Wiegel was dealing methamphetamine in the area, that he had observed
large quantities of methamphetamine inside the truck, and the truck was seen at the home
of a known methamphetamine dealer. Based on this information, and the great deference
we afford the issuing magistrate, we conclude there was probable cause to support the
issuance of the warrant for GPS tracking on Wiegel’s vehicle. The district court therefore
did not err in denying Wiegel’s motion to suppress the evidence.
Affirmed.