STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. STEVEN EARNIE MYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-962 / 06-0569
Filed December 28, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
STEVEN EARNIE MYERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. Van
Marel, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance (marijuana). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David A. Adams, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Karen Doland, Assistant Attorney
General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Stephen Owen, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., Vogel, J., and Brown, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
2
HUITINK, P.J.
In December 2005 Detective James Ulin of the Marshalltown Police
Department received a report of a possible violation of the pseudoephedrine
purchasing restrictions of Iowa Code section 124.213 (Supp. 2005). After further
investigation, the detective prepared an application for a search warrant to
search the home of Steven Myers. A search warrant was issued and executed
on December 19, 2005. During the search, officers found approximately thirty
grams of marijuana in Myers’s home.
Myers was charged with possession with intent to deliver marijuana in
violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2005). The State later agreed to
amend the trial information to charge Myers with possession of marijuana in
violation of section 124.401(5). Myers filed a motion to suppress, alleging a lack
of probable cause to issue the search warrant. The district court denied the
motion, and Myers agreed to a bench trial based on the minutes of testimony.
The district court found him guilty of possession of marijuana and sentenced him
to serve two days in the county jail. Myers appeals, arguing the district court
erred in denying his motion to suppress.
He contends there was no nexus
between the offense of which he was suspected, the purchase and possession of
a quantity of pseudoephedrine, and a search of his residence.
Our review is de novo. State v. Davis, 679 N.W.2d 651, 655-56 (Iowa
2004). We do not make “an independent determination of probable cause, but
only determine whether the issuing court had a substantial basis for finding the
existence of probable cause.” Id. at 656. In determining whether a substantial
basis existed for finding probable cause, we consider only that information,
3
reduced to writing, which the applicant presented to the court at the time of the
application for the warrant. State v. Godbersen, 493 N.W.2d 852, 855 (Iowa
1992).
We examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether
probable cause has been established for the issuance of a search warrant.
Davis, 679 N.W.2d at 656. As our supreme court has explained,
[t]he existence of probable cause to search a particular area
depends on whether a person of reasonable prudence would
believe that evidence of a crime might be located on the premises
to be searched. The task of the judge issuing the search warrant is
“to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit” presented to the judge,
there is a fair probability that law enforcement authorities will find
evidence of a crime at a particular place. A finding of probable
cause depends on “a nexus between criminal activity, the things to
be seized and the place to be searched.” In making that
determination, the judge may rely on reasonable, common-sense
inferences from the information presented. Close questions are
resolved in favor of the validation of the warrant. In reviewing the
court’s determination, we draw all reasonable inferences to support
a court’s finding of probable cause.
Id. (citations omitted).
The nexus between criminal activity, the items to be
seized, and the place to be searched “can be found by considering the type of
crime, the nature of the items involved, the extent of the defendant’s opportunity
for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the defendant would be
likely to conceal the items.” State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 365 (Iowa 1997)
(citation omitted). The facts and information presented to establish a finding of
probable cause “need not rise to the level of absolute certainty, rather, it must
supply sufficient facts to constitute a fair probability that contraband or evidence
will be found on the person or in the place to be searched.” State v. Thomas,
540 N.W.2d 658, 662-63 (Iowa 1995).
4
In his application for a search warrant, Detective Ulin stated that Myers
had purchased a total of more than thirteen grams of pseudoephedrine at three
different locations in Marshalltown on December 12 and December 17, 2005.
Detective Ulin further stated that Myers shopped at different stores to avoid
detection and that he violated section 124.213 (Supp. 2005) by purchasing more
than 7.5 grams of pseudoephedrine in a thirty-day period. The detective verified
that Myers lived at the address where the search was to take place. He noted,
In my experience, persons manufacturing methamphetamine can
and do use people to purchase pseudoephedrine for them.
Pseudoephedrine is a key ingredient in the manufacture of
methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. People
buying the pseudoephedrine often receive meth[amphetamine] in
exchange for these purchases. These persons also shop at
different stores in different towns on the same date in order to avoid
detection by law enforcement. As users of methamphetamine, they
often maintain drugs, paraphernalia, notes, names and contact
information in their residence. It is also my experience that they
keep large sums of money on hand to buy the pseudo[ephedrine]
with cash. This cash may be their own or given to them by the
manufacturer to purchase pseudo[ephedrine].
....
In my experience, these are all indications of purchasing
pseudoephedrine for use in the clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine. . . . In my experience, persons using drugs or
doing these kinds of pseudoephedrine purchases hide evidence in
the residence, vehicles, and on their persons.
The district court found a nexus between Myers’s possession of “too much
pseudoephedrine,” the “key ingredient” in the manufacture of methamphetamine,
and the requirement of a “secure location or an enclosed space” for the
manufacture of methamphetamine, “which very well could be the defendant’s
house.”
Thus, the court found probable cause “to believe that somebody in
possession of too much pseudoephedrine logically would be using their
5
residence as the key location for the manufacturing of that illegal controlled
substance.”
Considering the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the affidavit
supported the court’s conclusion that probable cause existed for the issuance of
the search warrant permitting the search of Myers’s residence.
Myers had
recently purchased a large quantity of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in the
manufacture of methamphetamine. The magistrate issuing the warrant could
reasonably infer from the facts recited in the affidavit that Myers’s residence was
a likely location for the manufacture of methamphetamine. See, e.g., State v.
Groff, 323 N.W.2d 204, 212 (Iowa 1982) (holding that magistrate could
reasonably infer that defendants’ residence was the likely location for processing
marijuana plants found in a farm field owned by a defendants, but located in
another county; quantity of marijuana observed indicated a “large-scale growing
operation” that required “a location where the plants could be processed before
distribution and use”). The district court properly denied the motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
