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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1700

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Johnnie Jones,
Appellant.

Filed November 21, 2022
Affirmed
Johnson, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-20-16748

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

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Anna R. Light, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Jennifer Workman Jesness,
Assistant Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Tracy M.
Smith, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JOHNSON, Judge
A Hennepin County judge found Johnnie Jones guilty of unlawful possession of a
firearm based on evidence that he kept a nine- millimeter handgun in his bedroom despite
being ineligible to possess a firearm. Jones challenges the district court’s denial of his pre-
2
trial motion to suppress the evidence of the handgun. We conclude that the search warrant
that authorized the search of Jones’ s home stated facts that established probable cause.
Therefore, we affirm.
FACTS
In July 2020, Deputy Peterson of the Hennepin County Sheriff’ s Office was
contacted by a confidential informant who previously had provided information that was
found to be true and correct. On this occasion, the informant told Deputy Peterson that the
informant had seen a firearm and crack cocaine at the Minneapolis home of a person later
identified as Jones. The informant provided Deputy Peterson with a physical description
of Jones and stated that Jones drives a Chevrolet Tahoe with a particular license -plate
number.
Deputy Peterson independently determined that Jones resided at the home identified
by the informant. Deputy Peterson showed the informant a photograph of Jones, and the
informant confirmed that the photograph is of Jones. Deputy Peterson also showed the
informant a photograph of the home where Jones resided, and the informant confirmed that
the photograph is of the home where the informant saw Jones in possession of the firearm
and crack cocaine. Deputy Peterson learned that Jones had a prior felony conviction that
prohibited him from possessing a firearm.
Deputy Peterson applied to a district court judge for a warrant to enter and search
Jones’s home. The warrant application recited the information that the informant had
provided, stated that the informant had assisted law enforcement in the past, and described
3
Deputy Peterson’s corroboration of the informant’s tip. The judge approved the application
and issued the search warrant.
Law-enforcement officers executed the search warrant seven days later. Upon
entering the home, officers made contact with four persons, including Jones. In an upstairs
bedroom, which Jones had occupied, officers found a nine-millimeter handgun, a loaded
nine-millimeter magazine, synthetic marijuana, and a digital scale.
The state charged Jones with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by an
ineligible person, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 1(2) (Supp. 2019), and one
count of fifth-degree controlled-substance crime, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.025,
subd. 2(1) (2018).
In July 2021, Jones moved to suppress the evidence arising from the search on the
ground that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. At a hearing on the
motion, neither party presented any witness testimony, but both parties submitted
memoranda of law concerning the validity of the search warrant. In August 2021, the
district court denied the motion, reasoning that the warrant application stated facts that
established the requisite probable cause.
In September 2021, the parties agreed to a stipulated-evidence court trial. See Minn.
R. Crim. P. 26.01, subds. 3, 4. The district court found Jones guilty of the alleged firearm
offense but not guilty of the alleged controlled-substance offense. The district court
imposed an executed sentence of 60 months of imprisonment. Jones appeals.

4
DECISION
Jones argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence.
He contends that the warrant application was not supported by probable cause and that the
warrant was stale when it was executed.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures” and states that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV; see also Minn. Const. art. I,
§ 10. “Probable cause exists if the judge issuing a warrant determines that ‘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) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).
Whether probable cause exists is a “practical, common-sense decision” based on the
totality of the circumstances. Id. at 622-23.
If there is a challenge to an issuing court’s determination of probable cause, the
reviewing court is limited to the information contained in the warrant application. State v.
Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Minn. 1998). The reviewing court “should afford the district
court’s determination great deference” and should consider only “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); see also Rugendorf v. United States , 376 U.S. 528, 533
(1964). Because the issuing judge’s determination should be based on the “totality of the
circumstances,” the reviewing court must be careful not to review each component of the
5
application in isolation. Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 732-33 (1984). The
resolution of doubtful or marginal cases “‘should be largely determined by the preference
to be accorded to warrants.’” Id. at 734 (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102,
109 (1965)).
If the facts and circumstances establishing probable cause are supplied by a
confidential informant, the “informant’s ‘veracity,’ ‘reliability,’ and ‘basis of knowledge’
are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report.” Gates , 462 U.S. at 230.
These characteristics are not “entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly
exacted in every case ” but, rather, are “closely intertwined issues that may usefully
illuminate the commonsense, practical question whether there is ‘probable cause.’” Id.
A.
In this case, the district court determined that the warrant application stated facts
and circumstances that established probable cause. The district court reached its
conclusion by reasoning that the informant’s previous collaboration with law enforcement
supported the informant’s reliability, that the informant came forward voluntarily, that the
informant provided information that could be self-inculpatory, and that the informant’s tip
was corroborated by Deputy Peterson.
Jones contends that the district court erred on the ground that the information in the
application is too vague to support a finding of probable cause. Our review of the warrant
application leads to the conclusion that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the
issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that the warrant application was
supported by probable cause. Three reasons support this conclusion.
6
First, the informant’s veracity is established by the informant’s previous
collaboration with law enforcement. The prior occasions on which the informant worked
with law enforcement were referenced in the warrant application. The informant’s prior
collaboration enhances the veracity of the tip because it puts the informant in “a position
to be held accountable.” State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn. 1990); see also
State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265, 269 (Minn. 1985); State v. Daniels, 200 N.W.2d 403, 406-
07 (Minn. 1972).
Second, the informant ’s basis of knowledge is demonstrated by the informant’s
first-hand knowledge of Jones’s conduct. “Recent personal observation of incriminating
conduct has traditionally been the preferred basis for an informant’s knowledge. ” Wiley,
366 N.W.2d at 269. The warrant application stated that the informant had personally
observed Jones in possession of a firearm in his own residence. The informant also
provided Jones’s home address, a description of Jones’s vehicle by make and model and
license-plate number, and a physical description of Jones. An informant’s “statement that
the event was observed firsthand, entitles his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be
the case.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 234.
Third, the reliability of the informant’s tip is enhanced by Deputy Peterson’s
corroboration of the details provided by the informant. Deputy Peterson corroborated
multiple details of the informant’s tip, including the physical description of Jones, the fact
that Jones resided in the residence where the informant had observed the firearm, and the
fact that Jones owned the Chevrolet Tahoe described by the informant, which Deputy
Peterson saw parked at the residence. The United States Supreme Court has “consistently
7
recognized the value of corroboration of details of an informant’s tip by independent police
work.” Id. at 241. “‘[C]orroboration through other sources of information reduce[s] the
chances of a reckless or prevaricating tale.’” Id. at 244-45 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 269 (1960)). To support reliability by corroboration, “there is no mandate
that every fact in the [informant’s report] be corroborated, that a certain number of facts be
corroborated, or that certain types of facts must be corroborated.” State v. Holiday, 749
N.W.2d 833, 841 (Minn. App. 2008). The corroboration of even minor details can lend
credence to an informant’s report. Draper, 358 U.S. at 313; McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d at
704; State v. Siegfried, 274 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Minn. 1978).
Jones challenges the district court’s reliance on Deputy Peterson’s corroboration of
the tip by asserting that the informant merely provided information that is easily verifiable
and, thus, not supportive of a finding of probable cause. Jones cites State v. Cook, 610
N.W.2d 664 (Minn. App. 2000), rev. denied (Minn. July 25, 2000), in which this court
concluded that a warrantless arrest was not supported by probable cause, in part because
law-enforcement officers “did no independent corroboration other than to verify that the
vehicle described by the CRI was parked in the YMCA lot and that the man leaving the
YMCA and getting into the driver’s side of the vehicle matched the description of Cook
given to police by the CRI.” Id. at 668. We reasoned that the tip “did not predict any
suspicious behavior on Cook’ s part” and was “entirely innocuous and lacked any
incriminating aspects that might corroborate the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs
at the YMCA.” Id. In this case, however, Deputy Peterson corroborated more details than
the location of Jones’s vehicle and a person matching a description of Jones. Deputy
8
Peterson also corroborated the location of Jones’s residence and confirmed with the
informant that Jones’s residence was where the informant had observed the firearm and
crack cocaine. In addition, the tip in Cook “fail[ed] to offer any explanation for the basis
of the CRI’s claim that Cook was selling drugs.” Id. But the informant in this case
personally observed a firearm and crack cocaine in Jones’s possession at his home, and
Deputy Peterson determined that Jones’s prior felony conviction prohibited him from
possessing a firearm.
Jones further contends that “[a]t least three of the Ross factors weighed against
reliability, while two others were of neutral utility given their lack of information.” Jones
refers to this court’s opinion in State v. Ross, 676 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. App. 2004), which
cited our opinion in State v. Ward , 580 N.W.2d 67 (Minn. App. 1998). In Ward, we
described “six considerations bearing on the reliability of an informant who is confidential
but not anonymous to police.” 580 N.W.2d at 71. The Ward opinion did not prescribe a
multi-factor balancing test; it merely listed examples of circumstances in which an
informant has been deemed reliable enough to support a finding of probable cause. See id.
The Supreme Court caselaw requires courts to consider the “totality of the circumstances,”
Upton, 466 U.S. at 732, and to consider the informant’s “‘veracity,’ ‘reliability,’ and ‘basis
of knowledge’” as “closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the
commonsense, practical question whether there is ‘probable cause,’” Gates, 462 U.S. at
230. That some of the circumstances identified in Ward and Ross are not present in this
case does not foreclose the conclusion that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the
9
facts stated in the warrant application established the probable cause necessary for the
issuance of a search warrant.
B.
As noted above, Jones also argues that this court should reverse the district court’s
pre-trial ruling on the ground that the warrant was stale when it was executed, seven days
after it was issued. In response, the state argues that Jones forfeited his staleness argument
by not presenting it to the district court and by raising it for the first time on appeal. The
state is correct that Jones did not make a staleness argument in the district court; he argued
only that the warrant application was not supported by probable cause. A probable-cause
challenge usually is based solely on the information contained in the warrant application.
See Souto, 578 N.W.2d at 749-50. Because Jones limited his motion to that issue, the
parties and the district court agreed that there was no need for an evidentiary hearing.
A defendant may challenge the admissibility of the state’s evidence on Fourth
Amendment grounds at an omnibus hearing. Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.02(b), (g). If the
defendant does not request an omnibus hearing, the defendant waives all arguments
concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained in a search and seizure. State ex rel.
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 141 N.W.2d 3, 14 (Minn. 1965). Similarly, if the defendant requests
an omnibus hearing, the defendant waives any arguments that were not asserted at the
omnibus hearing. State v. Merrill, 274 N.W.2d 99, 109 (Minn. 1978) (refusing to consider
argument concerning warrantless search because defendant challenged different search at
omnibus hearing). This rule applies with special force if the state did not have an
opportunity to present relevant evidence on the issue that is raised for the first time on
10
appeal. State v. Lieberg, 553 N.W.2d 51, 56 (Minn. App. 1996). Accordingly, we will not
consider Jones’s staleness argument for the first time on appeal.
In sum, the district court did not err by concluding that the facts stated in the warrant
application established probable cause and, thus, did not err by denying Jones’s motion to
suppress evidence.
Affirmed.