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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1832

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Vincent Joseph Myslajek,
Appellant.

Filed February 18, 2025
Affirmed
Schmidt, Judge

Anoka County District Court
File No. 02-CR-21-3649

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

Brad Johnson, Anoka County Attorney, Kelsey R. Kelley, Assistant County Attorney,
Anoka, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Schmidt,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SCHMIDT, Judge
In this direct appeal from convictions of first-degree possession of a controlled
substance, possession of a firearm by an illegible person, and possession of a firearm with
no serial number, appellant Vincent Joseph Myslajek challenges the district court’s denial
2
of his motion to suppress, arguing that the search warrant lacked a sufficient nexus between
drug activity and his residence. Because there was a sufficient nexus between the drug
activity and the residence to support a finding of probable cause, we affirm.
FACTS
An Anoka County deputy sheriff conducted surveillance on Myslajek’s house
because the deputy had credible information that one or more burglary suspects may be
staying there. Investigators believed one of the burglary suspect s possessed several
firearms taken during the burglary.
The deputy observed two individuals leave Myslajek’s house in a car and followed
them to a Kwik Trip. An Anoka County detective and other law enforcement officials
arrived to assist. The detective was provided with pictures of the burglary suspects. After
walking past the vehicle, the detective observed two individuals in the car. The detective
and deputy were 95% sure that the driver was the burglary suspect. The detective noticed
that the vehicle’s passenger appeared to be under the influence of a narcotic.
After the car drove out of the Kwik Trip parking lot, law enforcement attempted to
stop the vehicle. The car fled and the occupants “threw several bags from the vehicle.”
Law enforcement collected the bags and discovered three-fourths of a pound of a substance
that field- tested positive for methamphetamine. Based on that amount, the detective
believed the methamphetamine was for sale and not for individual use.
Because the car came from Myslajek’s house and only stopped at the Kwik Trip,
the detective suspected that methamphetamine was being sold from the residence. While
continuing surveillance on Myslajek’s house, law enforcement observed a vehicle make a
3
short-term stop at the residence and leave. Law enforcement stopped the vehicle and found
a small amount of methamphetamine on an occupant of the vehicle. The detective then
applied for a warrant to search the house. The detective believed that, based on the
significant amount of drugs that were thrown from the vehicle after leaving the house and
the subsequent discovery of a small quantity of drugs from the vehicle that briefly stopped
at the residence, drugs were being trafficked from the house. A district court judge found
the search warrant application was supported by probable cause and issued a warrant.
While executing the warrant, a canine alerted for narcotics on Myslajek’s vehicle.
Searching it, law enforcement found chemicals that can be used to make methamphetamine
and two firearms. Law enforcement also found more chemicals that can be used to produce
narcotics in a storage shed and recovered over 600 grams of dimethyltryptamine, an illegal
schedule-I hallucinogenic drug. Law enforcement found other items used to make
dimethyltryptamine and small amounts of the drug in the home. A detective also found a
firearm with its serial number filed off in Myslajek’s bedroom.
Respondent State of Minnesota charged Myslajek with: (1) first-degree possession
of a controlled substance; (2) possession of a firearm by an ineligible person; and
(3) possession of a firearm with no serial number. The defense moved to suppress the
evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause.1 The state opposed the motion.

1 At the district court, Myslajek argued the evidence should be suppressed because (1) there
was no nexus between his home and alleged criminal activity, and (2) the informant was
not reliable. Myslajek does not raise the argument regarding the informant on appeal.
4
The district court denied Myslajek’s motion. The court determined that the facts
presented in the affidavit—including the presence of burglary suspects at the house, the
large amount of methamphetamine thrown from the vehicle that had just left the home, and
the recovery of a small quantity of methamphetamine from a person who briefly visited the
house—provided probable cause to issue a search warrant.
Because the parties agreed that the suppression issue was dispositive, the
prosecution and defense proceeded with a stipulated-facts trial . The district court found
Myslajek guilty of all three charges. The court sentenced Myslajek to 115 months
imprisonment for the first-degree controlled substance crime with a concurrent sentence of
60 months’ imprisonment for unlawful possession of a firearm.2
Myslajek appeals.
DECISION
Myslajek argues that the district court should have suppressed the evidence because
the facts in the warrant application connecting his house to drug activity were too
speculative. “When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, [appellate courts]
review the district court’s determination of probable cause de novo.” State v. Holland,
865 N.W.2d 666, 673 (Minn. 2015). We look to the totality of the circumstances to
determine whether the district court had a substantial basis for finding probable cause.
State v. Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Minn. 1998).

2 The district court imposed no sentence on the conviction for possessing a firearm without
a serial number.
5
The state and federal Constitutions protect an individual’s right “to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]” Minn.
Const. art. 1, § 10; see also U.S. Const. amend. IV. To issue a search warrant, a district
court must find that the warrant application establishes probable cause that, based “on the
totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a
crime will be found in a particular place.” Holland , 865 N.W.2d at 673 (quotations
omitted). T he court “must make a common-sense determination based on practical
considerations of everyday life and the individual circumstances of each case.”
State v. Ward, 580 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Minn. App. 1998) (quotation omitted).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has “required a direct connection, or nexus, between
the alleged crime and the particular place to be searched, particularly in cases involving the
search of a residence for evidence of drug activity.” Souto, 578 N.W.2d at 747-48. The
nexus factors “include the nature of the crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of
the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the
suspect would normally keep the items.” State v. Brennan, 674 N.W.2d 200, 204 (Minn.
App. 2004) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 20, 2004). A district court
deciding whether to issue a search warrant may consider “[i]nformation linking the crime
to the place to be searched and the freshness of the information[.]” Id.
Myslajek argues the lack of nexus between drug activities and his residence is
comparable to the circumstances in State v. Souto, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court
concluded the search warrant lacked a nexus between the defendant’s residence and the
suspected criminal activity. 578 N.W.2d at 751. We disagree.
6
The defendant in Souto argued the search warrant application failed to demonstrate
“a nexus between her alleged drug activities and her residence[.]” Id. at 745. The affidavit
included no assertion that the defendant received drugs at her residence and there was
nothing to support an inference she was dealing drugs from her residence. Id. at 748-49.
The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s
motion to suppress because there was no nexus between the alleged drug activities and the
defendant’s residence. Id. at 749-51.
Myslajek argues that the warrant application here, like in Souto, “did not allege
specific facts establishing a direct, rather than speculative, connection between [his] house,
shed, and truck and drug dealing[.]” But the search warrant application in Souto did not
connect any of the defendant’s suspected illegal activity to her residence. Id. at 748-49.
Unlike in Souto, the warrant application here linked all the drug-related activity to
Myslajek’s residence.
The affidavit in support of the application for a warrant here alleged that law
enforcement observed a vehicle leave Myslajek’s residence. When law enforcement
attempted to stop the vehicle—believing the driver to be a suspect in a burglary—the
occupants threw three- fourths of a pound of methamphetamine from the vehicle . The
affiant averred that the amount of drugs recovered was indicative of an intent to sell. Given
that the individuals and the vehicle were under continuous surveillance between leaving
Myslajek’s house and before the drugs were thrown from the vehicle, the detective
suspected that the drugs came from Myslajek’s residence. Based on the substantial amount
of drugs recovered, the detective reasonably suspected more drugs would be found at the
7
residence. As the supreme court has concluded, “[i]t may be reasonable to infer that drug
wholesalers keep drugs at their residences[.]” State v. Yarbrough, 841 N.W.2d 619, 623
(Minn. 2014). And the detective’s “training and experience”—believing additional drugs
will be in Myslajek’s residence—was “a proper factor [for the court] to consider in making
a probable-cause determination.” Brennan, 674 N.W.2d at 204.
Law enforcement then continued their investigation by conducting additional
surveillance on Myslajek’s residence. They observed a vehicle make a short term stop at
the residence. Law enforcement stopped the vehicle and recovered a small amount of
methamphetamine from the occupant of the vehicle. The additional investigation provided
another link between the drugs—and suspicion of drug trafficking —to the house.
The circumstances here linked a substantial amount of drugs —indicative of
trafficking—and a small amount of drugs—indicative of a sale of a personal-use amount
having just occurred—to Myslajek’s residence. The district court did not err in concluding
that, based on the totality of the circumstances, there was a fair probability that evidence
of a crime would be found at Myslajek’s residence.
Myslajek also contends that nothing supported a probable-cause determination that
his residence would have stolen firearms from the burglary. But the detective’s affidavit
stated that a burglary suspect believed to be in possession of stolen firearms had been at
Myslajek’s residence. After conducting surveillance on his house, a deputy observed an
individual leaving Myslajek’s residence that the deputy believed, with 95% certainty, was
the suspect from the burglary. The issuing judge did not err in finding there was probable
cause to search Myslajek’s residence for firearms from the burglary.
8
Finally, Myslajek argues that even if probable cause existed to search his house,
there was not probable cause to search the shed or his vehicle. To support his argument,
Myslajek quotes the United States Supreme Court’s conclusion that “probable cause to
believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to
search an upstairs bedroom[.]” United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982). But a
stolen lawnmower in an upstairs bedroom is easily distinguishable from the detective’s
belief that instrumentalities of drug trafficking will be found in a vehicle or in a shed on
the same property that law enforcement suspects “is being used as an outlet for drug use
and trafficking.” Law enforcement had recovered three-fourths of a pound of drugs and a
small amount of drugs, both of which were connected to Myslajek’s property. As such,
the district court did not err in determining that there was probable cause to search
Myslajek’s house, shed, and vehicle.
Affirmed.