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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1169

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Aaron Mitchel Peterson,
Appellant.

Filed August 12, 2024
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Meeker County District Court
File No. 47-CR-22-758

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Lydia Villalva Lijó, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota; and

Brandi Schiefelbein, Meeker County Attorney, Litchfield, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Harris, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
In this direct appeal from his convictions of threats of violence, second-degree
assault with a dangerous weapon, fifth- degree possession of a controlled substance, and
nine gross -misdemeanor counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, appellant Aaron
Mitchel Peterson argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a Franks 1
hearing because the search-warrant application contained material misrepresentations and
omissions and did not otherwise provide probable cause. We affirm.
FACTS
In August 2022, Peterson’s mother called 911 to report that she and her husband
had been threatened by Peterson. A deputy responded to Peterson’s mother’s house and
spoke with Peterson’s parents. Peterson’s mother showed police a text message that she
had received earlier in the day from Peterson: “Hope you know when this all is [h]appens
its because of what u have done . !!!! U Will see.” Peterson’s mother told police that she
called Peterson after receiving this text message, and he threatened to come over to their
house with a shotgun if they did not return firearms that they were holding for him.
Peterson also told his mother that “any cops that I hit is on you.”
After a detective arrived on the scene, the deputy went to Peterson’s home. The
deputy deemed it unsafe to knock on Peterson’s door and instead surveilled his house from

1 See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978) (permitting an evidentiary hearing to
challenge the validity of a search-warrant affidavit upon allegations of deliberate falsehood
or of reckless disregard for the truth, accompanied by an offer of proof).
3
down the road. The deputy observed a vehicle leave Peterson’s property and stopped the
vehicle to inquire about Peterson’s state of mind. The vehicle’s driver, B.V. , told the
deputy that he was Peterson’s friend and, during the past hour visiting with him, he did not
observe any guns or ammunition in Peterson’s home. B.V. also told police that he did not
find Peterson to be threatening or suicidal, but noted Peterson did appear to be anxious.
The deputy called Peterson on the phone. Peterson refused the deputy’s request to
leave his house. When the deputy told Peterson that police could not just leave the situation
and that all he could do is try to contact Peterson, Peterson replied “well I guess that’s all
you can say when everything goes down then . . . is that, you know, you really tried.”
Various agencies mobilized their SWAT teams while the detective submitted a
search warrant application for Peterson’s home. In the application, the detective stated that
he expected to find Peterson, firearms, and ammunition in Peterson’s residence, and
attested that the facts establishing the ground for a search warrant included the following:
On 08/01/2022 at approximately 1731 hours, the Meeker
County Sheriff’s Office received a report of threats . . . The
caller, [Peterson’s mother], DOB [] reported her son,
[Peterson], DOB [] called her and demanded his guns she had
in her possession. Law Enforcement arrived and learned
[Peterson’s mother] said [Peterson] told her on the phone and
by text “hope u know when this all is [h]appens its because of
what u have done!!! U Will see” and “any cops I hit are on
you.” [Peterson’s mother] said she believes [Peterson] is
suicidal and made threats to burn his house down as well as
[her house] if he did not get his firearms back. [He] said if she
didn’t give them to [him] he would come over with a shotgun
and take them. [Peterson’s mother] said she had not seen
[Peterson] today and it was believed he was at his
residence . . . due to the fact he said he could not come get the
guns because he did not have any gasoline in his vehicle.
[Peterson’s mother] said she was afraid [ Peterson] would hurt
4
himself or a police officer. [Peterson’s mother] said she
believed [Peterson] to be in possession of a shotgun or long
gun.

A cell phone ping of [Peterson’s] phone showed his phone
location at his residence with an uncertainty of 164 meters.
Law enforcement had been parked on the road near
[Peterson’s] residence since approximately 1830 hours and had
not seen [Peterson] arrive at or leave his residence.

[Peterson] is currently on probation through the Department of
Corrections Litchfield District and is prohibited from
possessing weapons. The Kandi- Meeker SWAT team was
activated to respond to the residence.

The district court issued the search warrant. Following a 28-hour standoff between
law enforcement and Peterson, Peterson surrendered. The detective and three officers
executed the search warrant for Peterson’s residence the following day. They recovered
nine firearms, nine rounds of .22-caliber ammunition, and methamphetamine residue in a
baggie found in plain view.
The state charged Peterson by amended complaint with threats of violence,
second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon, fifth-degree possession of a controlled
substance, and nine gross-misdemeanor counts of unlawful possession of a firearm. Before
trial, Peterson challenged the validity of the search warrant issued to search his home. The
district court denied Peterson’s request for a Franks hearing and concluded that the search
warrant was valid because the alleged misrepresentations and omissions were not material.
The jury found Peterson guilty of all charges. The district court granted Peterson a
downward dispositional departure and sentenced him to five years on probation.
Peterson appeals.
5
DECISION
Peterson argues that the search-warrant application contained material
misrepresentations and omissions of fact and that, without these misrepresentations and
omissions, the application lacked probable cause. He also argues that the district court
abused its discretion by denying him a hearing on the issue.
Standard of review.
In reviewing an argument that the district court should have held a Franks hearing,
appellate courts review for clear error the district court’s findings on whether there was a
statement or omission that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth. State v. Andersen,
784 N.W.2d 320, 327 (Minn. 2010). Appellate courts review de novo whether the alleged
misrepresentation or omission was material to the probable cause determination. Id.
“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the
application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the
findings of probable cause.” State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 105 (Minn. 1989)
(referencing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 −72). However, to challenge the truthfulness of
factual statements made in an affidavit seeking a search warrant, Peterson must show that
“(1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the
truth, and (2) the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” Andersen,
784 N.W.2d at 327 (explaining that the search warrant was valid because the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in the application were not material). No Franks hearing
is necessary if there is an absence of evidence that an officer deliberately or recklessly
omitted information material to the probable cause determination. See id.
6
The contested statements are not material facts that were deliberately or
recklessly omitted from the search-warrant application.

Peterson argues that “the search-warrant application misrepresented some facts,
while omitting others, thus rendering the warrant and subsequent search invalid.”
As a threshold matter, Peterson does not identify any misrepresentation in the
search-warrant affidavit, let alone any intentional or reckless misrepresentation. As such,
Peterson has not identified misrepresentations in the search-warrant application that would
invalidate the search warrant. Andersen, 784 N.W.2d at 327.
Next, Peterson argues that the search-warrant affidavit should have included B.V.’s
statements, which were that Peterson was home, not suicidal, non-threatening, and that
B.V. did not notice ammunition in Peterson’s home.
The district court determined that there was no omitted information that caused the
warrant to be false or misleading. The court further concluded that the omission of B.V.’s
statements was not material because “material omissions in a search warrant . . . also must
impact the probable cause if you add in the omissions.”
Specifically, the court stated that Peterson had
failed to offer proof sufficient to satisfy . . . that any of the
offered omissions ([Peterson’s] criminal history, [B.V.]’s
interactions with [Peterson], law enforcement[’]s interactions
with [Peterson], whether [Peterson’s mother] regretted her
decision to call law enforcement, etc . . .), if added to the search
warrant would have changed the probable cause such that the
judge would not have issued the warrant with that information
included in the warrant.
We agree with the district court that adding the alleged omissions into the
search-warrant application would not impact the finding of probable cause because the
7
purported omissions do not negate the other evidence provided to law enforcement. For
example, while B.V. claimed that Peterson was not suicidal, he conceded that Peterson
appeared anxious. And adding B.V.’s statement about not noticing ammunition in
Peterson’s home to the warrant application would not negate the fact that Peterson’s mother
told officers that Peterson threatened to go to his mother’s house with a shotgun to take his
guns back, or the fact that Peterson was prohibited from possessing a firearm. The
omissions also do not negate Peterson’s disturbing texts about what will happen if his
mother did not return the guns: “any cops that I hit is on you.”
In other words, the omissions do not diminish the signing judge’s probable-cause
determination given the totality of the circumstances. See Anderson, 784 N.W.2d at
327−29 (holding alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding weapons owned by
defendant in application for search warrant of defendant’s property were not material to
probable cause); State v. Mems, 708 N.W.2d 526, 532 (Minn. 2006) (“Misrepresentations
invalidate a warrant when they are . . . material to establishing probable cause, meaning
probable cause could likely not be established without them.”). Because Peterson failed to
satisfy the first prong of this two-step inquiry, the district court properly determined that a
Franks hearing was unnecessary because the allegations were not pertinent to the probable
cause issue. Anderson, 784 N.W.2d at 320.
Affirmed.