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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A20-0037

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jeffrey Patrick Sims,
Appellant.

Filed November 23, 2020
Affirmed
Florey, Judge

Winona County District Court
File No. 85-CR-19-620

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

Karin L. Sonneman, Winona County Attorney, Christina M. Galewski, Assistant County
Attorney, Winona, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Lydia Maria Villalva Lijó,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and Florey,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
FLOREY, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of first-degree controlled-substance possession,
arguing that the district court erred by denying his suppression motion because law
enforcement lacked probable cause to search his vehicle. We affirm.
FACTS
At around 2:00 a.m., an officer saw a driver sleeping in a running car in a parking
lot in Winona, Minnesota. The officer ran the Wisconsin license plates and learned that
the car’s owner, appellant Jeffrey Patrick Sims, had outstanding warrants for failure to
appear and pending felony charges for amphetamine and methamphetamine possession,
felon in possession of a firearm, and carrying a concealed weapon.
The officer exited his vehicle and approached the sleeping driver, Sims. The officer
saw a wallet in Sims’s hand a nd two cell phones in the car. The officer knocked on the
window and was able to wak e Sims after about 40 seconds. He asked Sims for
identification and saw a large amount of cash in the wallet, an amount later determin ed to
be $1,385. Sims had some difficulty locating identification in his wallet, and the officer
assisted him. The officer saw that the dash behind the steering wheel and center console
had been altered and noticed two bags in the back seat; the car was otherwise very clean.
The officer asked Sims about his location and destination, and Sims answered the officer’s
questions.
After confirming with dispatch that Sims had an outstanding warrant, the office r
ordered Sims out of the car. After exiting, Sims lo cked his door, which aro used the

3
officer’s suspicions. The officer then handcuffed Sims, searched his vehicle, and
discovered methamphetamine inside a locked container in a bag in the back seat of the car.
The state charged Sims with first -degree possession of methamphetamine. Sims
moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to search
his vehicle under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and that the search
was not incident to arrest.
The district court held a contested omnibus hearing. The officer testified about his
training and experience in investigating narcotics trafficking, including experience
uncovering hidden drug compartments in vehicles. The officer testified that the dash in
Sims’s car ha d been manipulated, and part of the center console had been disassemble d
and “partially reassembled.” The officer testified that these were the “types of things” he
looked for when investi gating narcotics trafficking. The officer also testified that havi ng
two cell phones and a large amount of cash can be an indication that a person sells narcotics.
The district court deni ed Sims’s suppression motion. The court credited the
officer’s training and experience and concluded that the officer developed probable cause
to search the vehicle under the automobile excepti on to the warrant requirement. Sims
waived his trial rights and stipulated to the prosecution’s case under Minn. R. Crim. P.
26.01, subd. 4, to obtain review of the dis trict court’s pretrial ruling. The district court
found Sims guilty and sentenced him to serve 64 months in prison. Sims appeals.
D E C I S I O N
Sims argues that the district court erred by denying his suppression motion because
the officer lacked proba ble cause to search his car. “When reviewing pretrial orders on

4
motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a
matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing —or not suppressing —the
evidence.” State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999). We review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and it s legal determinations de novo. State v. Ortega, 770
N.W.2d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009). In reviewing the district court’s factual findings, we defer
to the district court’ s credibility determ inations. State v. Miller , 659 N.W.2d 275, 279
(Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. July 15, 2003).
The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution protect against
“unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. A
search conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless it satisfies “one of the well -
delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 135
(Minn. 1999). “When probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband,
the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without a warrant. ” State
v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007). This includes closed containers in the
vehicle. State v. Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016).
“Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant
a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” Id. (quotation
omitted). “Probable cause is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the
circumstances in each case.” Id. “[T]he totality of the circumstances includes reasonable
inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their tra ining and experience,
because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons. ”
Id. “Therefore, an appellate court must give due weight to reasonable inferences drawn by

5
police officers and to a district court’s finding that the officer was credible and the inference
was reasonable.” Id. (quotations omitted).
The officer found Sims asleep in a running car . He had outstanding warrant s for
failure to appear, and pending charges for methamphetamine possession and unlawful
possession of a firearm . He possessed a large amount o f cash and two c ell phones. His
vehicle’s dash and center console were altered. He was difficult to wake and showed signs
of confusion in responding to the officer’s request for identification. Lastly, he locked his
door after exiting his vehicle.
Taken together, the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause to believe
that Sims was transporting, selling, or using controlled substances, and that his car
contained contraband, particularly when giving due deference to the reasonable inferences
that the officer was able to draw from the c ash, phones, and altered dash in plain view .
Probable cause is a common-sense concept involving practical considerations. Id.
Sims relies on Flowers to argue that the officer lacked probable cause. In Flowers,
the supreme court concluded that furtive movements, without other relevant circumstances,
did not provide probable cause to search a vehicle. 734 N.W.2d at 249. This case is
distinguishable. Unlike Flowers, this case contains numerous relevant circumstances and
reasonable inferences supporting a probable-cause determination. Additionally, i n
Flowers, the officers did not know that the suspect had a criminal record. Id. Here, the
officer was aware of Sims’s outstanding warrants for failure to appear and pending charges
for methamphetamine possession and unlawful possession of a firearm . Criminal history,
including not only convictions but prior arrests, can be considered as one factor in the

6
totality of circumstances relevant to probable cause. State v. Hochstein, 623 N.W.2d 617,
623 (Minn. App. 2001); State v. Lieberg, 553 N.W.2d 51 , 56 (Minn. App. 1996). The
district court did not err by denying Sims’s suppression motion.
Affirmed.