Background
R.H. was charged with third-degree controlled substance sale under Minnesota Statute 152.023 after a tragic medical emergency led to law enforcement conducting an unauthorized search of his home. R.H.’s family called 911 to seek help for a relative who was experiencing a medical crisis. Unfortunately, the family member passed away at the scene. There was no suspicion of foul play or any criminal activity related to the death. Yet, law enforcement searched the entire home without seeking consent or obtaining a search warrant.
During the search, officers found a significant amount of marijuana in the basement, along with evidence of a marijuana grow operation. Based on these discoveries, law enforcement then applied for and obtained a search warrant. The subsequent search revealed over 32 pounds of marijuana and a large sum of cash, leading to R.H. being charged with controlled substance sales.
Challenge
R.H. faced serious charges, with law enforcement using the evidence they uncovered during the searches to prosecute him. However, defense attorney Ryan Pacyga identified a critical issue: the initial search was conducted without a warrant or consent, raising concerns about a violation of R.H.’s constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution. The challenge was to suppress the evidence obtained through this unlawful search, which was central to the prosecution’s case.
Defense Strategy
Ryan Pacyga’s defense strategy focused on challenging the legality of the initial search. He argued that law enforcement had conducted an unconstitutional search without any valid exception to the warrant requirement. Further, he contended that the search warrant obtained later was also illegal, as it was based on information gained from the unlawful initial search.
The prosecution attempted to justify the search by claiming several exceptions to the search warrant requirement, but Pacyga rigorously contested each of these arguments, asserting that no valid exceptions applied.
Outcome
The judge agreed with Ryan Pacyga’s defense, ruling that law enforcement had indeed violated R.H.’s constitutional rights by conducting the initial search without a warrant or consent. As a result, the judge granted the defense’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the searches. With the key evidence suppressed, the prosecution had no basis to continue with the case, leading to the dismissal of all charges against R.H.
Conclusion
In State v. R.H., Ryan Pacyga’s defense successfully challenged an unconstitutional search, leading to the suppression of evidence and the dismissal of third-degree controlled substance charges. This case underscores the importance of defending constitutional rights and holding law enforcement accountable for warrantless searches. Pacyga’s ability to protect his client’s rights resulted in a complete dismissal, highlighting the critical role of a strong defense in upholding justice.