STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL CONTRELL ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-915 / 09-0246
Filed December 17, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL CONTRELL ROGERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, J. Hobart Darbyshire
(motion to suppress) and Gary D. McKenrick (trial), Judges.
Michael Contrell Rogers appeals from his conviction and sentence for
failure to affix a drug tax stamp. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth S. Reynoldson, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Julie Walton,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Eisenhauer, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
MAHAN, S.J.
Michael Contrell Rogers appeals from the judgment and sentence entered
following his conviction for failure to affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of Iowa
Code section 453B.12 (2007). He contends the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress the evidence discovered following a search of his vehicle.
Because this appeal implicated Rogers’s constitutional rights to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures, our review is de novo.
See State v.
Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 (Iowa 2001).
On August 4, 2008, police officers obtained a warrant to search a
Davenport residence after receiving information from a confidential informant
about a male selling marijuana from the residence. The search of the residence
yielded the discovery of 65.7 grams of marijuana. Immediately before executing
the warrant, a male matching the description given by the confidential informant
was seen leaving the residence.
Two officers followed the male seen leaving the residence, who was later
identified as Rogers. They approached him a short time later at a gas station to
request identification. After witnessing Rogers stuffing something between the
front seats of the vehicle, Rogers was ordered out of the vehicle and a pat down
was conducted for officer safety. One of the officers observed a plastic baggie
sticking up from between the seats on the floor of the vehicle. The vehicle was
searched and two bags of marijuana were found, weighting 5.5 and 2.9 grams
respectively.
3
Rogers filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search
of the residence, arguing the warrant was stale. He also sought suppression of
the evidence discovered during the search of the vehicle, arguing the search was
warrantless as it was conducted more than five blocks from the location listed in
the warrant, and that it was not based on probable cause. The district court
rejected both claims. In regard to the second claim, it concluded Rogers’s furtive
activity gave the officers probable cause to ask him to get out of the vehicle and
that the contraband was in plain view. It is from this ruling Rogers appeals.
We need not consider the propriety of the district court’s ruling as we
conclude any error was harmless. See State v. Peterson, 663 N.W.2d 417, 430
(Iowa 2002) (stating most constitutional errors do not require reversal if the error
is harmless). Error is harmless where the State proves beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Id.
at 431. Here, we have the benefit of the district court’s written ruling. In finding
Rogers guilty, the court focuses solely on the evidence discovered in the
residence. It states:
The Court concludes that on August 4, 2008, the Defendant
was a resident of [the address in question]. Indicia of his
occupancy was found at the residence, and the Defendant claimed
that address as his residence in his application for court-appointed
counsel.
Pursuant to search warrant, more than forty-two and onehalf grams of marijuana was located in that residence. Located
with the marijuana were documents indicating the Defendant’s
residency at that location. The location of the indicia of the
Defendant’s occupancy of the residence with the marijuana leads
the Court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Defendant knew of the presence of the marijuana, knew that the
substance was marijuana, and had the authority and opportunity to
use or dispose of that marijuana. Finally, the Court determines that
4
no drug tax stamps had been purchased or were affixed to the
packaging in which the marijuana was located.
Because the evidence found in the vehicle did not contribute to the verdict, we
find any error was harmless and accordingly, we affirm.
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.
