State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0251

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Spencer Robert Stiller,
Appellant.

Filed December 27, 2021
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Beltrami County District Court
File No. 04-CR-20-873

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

David Hanson, Beltrami County Attorney, Ashley A. Nelson, Assistant County Attorney,
Bemidji, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Ap pellate Public Defender, Ab igail H. Rankin, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
On appeal from his conviction for unlaw ful possession of ammunition, appellant
Spencer Robert Stiller argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to
suppress evidence because law enforcement found the ammunition in his vehicle during a
warrantless inventory search and the state failed to estab lish the inventory search was
pursuant to a standard departmental policy. Because the district court did not err in denying
appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, we affirm.
FACTS
During a snowfall in the evening hours of March 15, 2020, Sergeant Anthony Petrie
and three other deputies of the Beltrami County Sheriff’s Office noticed a vehicle in a ditch
on the side of the road. Sergeant Petrie approached the vehicle and saw appellant Spencer
Robert Stiller, alone and uncons cious at the wheel. Sergea nt Petrie began checking on
Stiller and saw vomit coming out of his nose and mouth. After Stiller regained
consciousness, Sergeant Petrie allowed Stiller to step out of the vehicle. Stiller appeared
unsteady on his feet and exhibited signs of someone under the influe nce of alcohol or a
controlled substance.
Stiller denied that he abused controlled substances but stated he was taking several
prescription medications. Sergeant Petrie fi rst administered a breath test which did not
detect the presence of alcohol, and then cond ucted field sobriety tests. Sergeant Petrie
testified that Stiller exhibited signs of impairment and performed “[v]ery poor[ly]” on the
field sobriety tests. Sergeant Petrie placed Stiller under arrest on suspicion of driving under
3
the influence of a controlled substance. Me anwhile, because no one was present to take
custody of the vehicle, Deputy Voss called a tow truck and began conducting an inventory
search with Deputies Gack and Nelson.
During the search, Deputy Gack found a cloth bag contai ning four shotgun shells
and nine bullets in the glove compartment of the vehicle. Officers searched Stiller’s
criminal history and learned that he had a prior conviction for a crime of violence and thus
was prohibited from possessing am munition. Deputy Gack co llected the ammunition as
evidence and Deputy Nelson completed a Beltrami County Sheriff’s Office impound report
(the report). The report documented several items including “cell phones, glass cleaner,
[and] misc[ellaneous] items in rear hatch area.”
The state charged Stiller with one co unt of unlawful possession of ammunition
under Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (S upp. 2019), and one coun t of fourth-degree
driving while impaired (DWI) under Minn. Stat. § 169A.27, subd. 1 (2018). Stiller moved
to suppress evidence of the ammunition seized from his car and the district court conducted
a hearing on that motion. Sergeant Petrie, Deputy Gack, Deputy Nelson, and Deputy Voss
all testified at the contested omnibus hearing. The district court sequestered the officers
during the other officers’ testimony. Sergeant Pe trie testified first. He testified that he
conducted the field sobriety tests for Stiller and ultimately placed him under arrest for
driving under the influence. The prosecutor then asked about why the vehicle was towed:
Q: And what happened to Mr. Stiller’s vehicle after he was
placed under arrest?
A: It was towed from the edge of the ditch.
Q: Why?
4
A: Well, a number of reasons. . . . [I]t was o ff the roadway,
but it was just down on the edge of the ditch. . . . [I]t was
currently snowing outside. The roads were going to be plowed
. . . . [H]e was placed under arrest. There was no one else there
to take custody of the vehicle. . . . [T]his area, where the
vehicle was in, is a high[-]trave led area. It’s [a] high crime
area. . . . [A]nytime that someone is arrested out of a vehicle,
we assume the responsibility of that per our policy; that we’ll
take care of the vehicle and make sure it’s safe and guarded so
that none of their stuff is damaged or stolen.

When asked about the inventory search, Sergeant Petrie testif ied that the purpose of the
search was to “document any items inside of the vehicle that are of value” to ensure nothing
is taken out of it. Sergeant Petrie testified that it appeared that Stiller was living out of his
vehicle because it was “completely full of pr operty.” For that reason, the officers
summarized the property for purpose of the re port. When asked whether the tow and
inventory search were “consistent or inconsistent with Beltrami County Sheriff’s Office
policy,” Sergeant Petrie testified: “It was consistent with it.”
Deputy Voss testified next on the inventory search:
Q: What happened after you contacted the tow?
A: We began inventorying the vehicle.
Q: Why?
A: T o e ns u r e t ha t e ve r yt hi n g i s documented that is in there.
We document with photographs as well.
Q: Why?
A: Just to ensure that they can’t come back and tell - - say that
we stole anything from the vehicle or anything is now missing
from their vehicle.
Q: Okay. And is that consistent or inconsistent with Beltrami
County . . . sheriff’s office policy with respect to towing
vehicles?
A: It is consistent with our policy.

5
Deputy Voss also testified that she photographe d the interior of the vehicle while doing
inventory, although she started the search in the rear of the vehicle and did not initially take
photographs there. She stated the policy does not specify the order that the officers need
to follow when conducting the inventory search. She also testified that officers “can search
the vehicle in any parts of th e vehicle subject to arrest pe r our policy” and that following
an arrest for suspicion of drugs, officers can search for drug paraphernalia while conducting
the inventory search.
Next, Deputy Gack testified about the inventory search:
Q: And why do you do an inventory search of the vehicle?
A: Well, you want to log any va luable items in the vehicle.
And say you find something of excessive value, you want to be
there to take possession of it rather than it sitting in the vehicle.
But it, also, allows the vehicle to secure in the . . . tow lot so
things don’t get stolen from the vehicle.

. . . .

Q: And was the inventory search and the tow consistent or
inconsistent with Beltrami County Sheriff’s Office policy?
A: It was consistent.

Finally, Deputy Nelson testif ied as a witness for the defense. He was not asked
about the sheriff’s office policies but did testify about his role in completing the report. He
testified that he briefly helped inventory the vehicle but did not itemize every item found
because the vehicle’s interior was photographed.
Following the hearing, the district cour t denied the motion to suppress evidence,
finding that the officers were justified in towing Stiller’s vehicle and that the testimony
showed the search complied with the Beltrami County towing policy. Stiller pleaded guilty
6
to the misdemeanor DWI charge and stipulated to the state’s evidence of the ineligible-
person-in-possession-of-ammunition charge to ob tain appellate review of the pretrial
suppression ruling. The district court conv icted Stiller on both counts and imposed a 60-
month prison sentence on the am munition charge and a concurre nt 90-day sentence as to
the DWI. Stiller now appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of ammunition.
DECISION
Stiller challenges his convic tion for possession of ammu nition by an ineligible
person, arguing that the state failed to meet its burden of establishing that the deputies
followed standard procedures in conducting the inventory search. Thus, he argues that the
ammunition evidence shou ld be suppressed. When review ing a pretrial order denying a
motion to suppress evidence, this court inde pendently reviews the facts and determines
whether, as a matter of law, the district court erred in not suppressing the evidence. State
v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353, 359 (Minn. 2004). We review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo. State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d
496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
The U.S. Constitution and th e Minnesota Constitution bo th prohibit unreasonable
searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10. Generally,
warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, and the state bears the burden of establishing
an exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Minn. 2001).
Inventory searches are a well-defined exception to the warrant requirement. An inventory
search conducted under standard procedure before lawfully impounding an automobile is
not unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d at 502.
7
Appellate courts accord deference to la w enforcement caretaking procedures
designed to protect vehicles in law enforcement custody. State v. Holmes , 569 N.W.2d
181, 186–87 (Minn. 1997). “In determining the reasonableness of an inventory search . . .
courts must ask whether police carried out the search in accord ance with standard
procedures in the local police department.” Id. at 187. Law enforcement must also
“conduct[] the search, at leas t in part, for the purpose of obtaining an inventory.” Id. at
188; see also Colorado v. Bertine , 479 U.S. 367, 372 (1987) (stating that searches
conducted “in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation” are not valid inventory
searches). A legitimate inventory search may be established by proof that law enforcement
had a standard inventory search policy and that the officers complied with that policy.
Ture, 632 N.W.2d at 628. The impoundment mu st also be reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment. State v. Rohde, 852 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Minn. 2014). The impoundment is
considered reasonable if the state’s interest in impounding the vehicle outweighs the
individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Id.
Stiller does not contend that the police ha d improper motives for searching the
vehicle, but instead argues that the testimon y and evidence did not sufficiently establish
that the officers followed any standard inventory search procedure. We disagree.
Here, the state did not offer into evidence an official sheriff’s office inventory search
policy. But the existence of and compliance with standard procedures may be established
through testimony and does not require admission of the policy itself. Ture, 632 N.W.2d
at 628. The transcript of the contested omnibus hearing established that the sheriff’s office
had a standard inventory search procedur e and that the officer s complied with the
8
procedure during the search of Stiller’s vehicle. All four officers present at the scene on
March 15 testified, and the district court seque stered each officer be fore their testimony.
Three officers testified that the search was necessary because Stiller was being arrested, no
one was present to take custody of the vehi cle, and the snowy weather conditions made it
necessary to tow the vehicle before snowplows came through. These facts also show that
the impoundment was constitutionally reasonab le under the Fourth Amendment because
the circumstances required police to ta ke responsibility for the vehicle. See Rohde, 852
N.W.2d at 264.
Three officers independently stated that the purpose of the inventory search was to
catalog any valuable items to safeguard the prope rty. The officers testified that, when a
vehicle has a great deal of property, as in this case, they will summarize, rather than itemize,
the property. The report and testimony estab lish that the officers made a summary of
Stiller’s belongings. Deputy Vo ss further testified about the scope of the search stating
that, per the sheriff’s office policy, officers could search any parts of the vehicle following
a lawful arrest for a DWI. The testimony and evidence establish that the officers searched
the rear of the vehicle, the driver’s side, and the glovebox. The testimony also established
that the officers photographed the car’s interior and completed a report, per the policy.
Stiller cites State v. Hensley as an example of a case when this court found the record
did not sufficiently establish that the sheriff’s department had a standard policy. No. A04-
0274, 2005 WL 525538 (Minn. App. Mar. 8, 2005). In that case, no evidence of the policy
was provided to the court, and the investigating officer testified “only that he conducted an
inventory search and that it was ‘pursuant to policy.’” Id. at *4. This court found that the
9
testimony was limited and did not reveal what the policy was, whether the department even
had a policy, and whether the department followed the policy. Id.
This case is distinguishable from Hensley. The testimony at the contested omnibus
hearing provided the district court with mo re detail about the sh eriff’s office policy
including why the vehicle was towed, the purpose of the inventory search, the outcome of
the inventory search, and whether the search complied with the sheriff’s office policy. The
record also contains evidence of the inventory forms and the officer’s reports detailing the
sequence of the events. Deputy Voss testified to her role in calling the tow truck and taking
photographs. Deputy Gack’s report explained his role in finding the ammunition. And
Deputy Nelson testified to his role in completing the inventor y sheet. Finally, Sergeant
Petrie, Deputy Voss, and Depu ty Gack each testified that the search complied with the
sheriff’s office towing policy.
In sum, because the testim ony at the hearing established the existence of and
compliance with a standard inventory search procedure and the search was constitutionally
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the district court did not err in denying Stiller’s
motion to suppress evidence of ammunition found in his vehicle.
Affirmed.