Skip to content
Drugs Dealing

Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer

Lynne Torgerson, a Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer, represents people charged with various drug crimes. 

Drug crimes, upon conviction, can carry some of the longest sentences in the criminal justice system, especially where sales of drugs are involved.  In Minnesota, drug offenses are called controlled substance crimes. 

They usually involve charges of possession or sale of drugs or such as methamphetamine, heroin, crack, cocaine, mushrooms, marijuana, or possession of paraphernalia, and the like.

If you've been charged with the any of the following controlled substance crimes, Minneapolis Drug Crimes Attorney Lynne Torgerson can help.

  • Drug Possession
  • Drug Sales
  • Forfeitures
  • Marijuana in a Motor Vehicle
  • Possession of a Controlled Substance
  • Possession of Paraphernalia
  • Possession of Marijuana
  • Possession with Intent to Sell

Top Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer

Arrests and drug crime charges, even against innocent individuals, are a problem.  Having the mention of a drug related crime on your criminal record can have huge negative consequences on your personal and professional life, as well as potentially carrying a lengthy prison term. 

One needs to understand that drug charges are amongst the most serious charges and hence demand professional intervention at the earliest possibility. 

If you or your loved one has been charged with a drug crime, then call Lynne Torgerson, Esq., of TORGERSON CRIMINAL DEFENSE, Minnesota Drug Charges Lawyer, as soon as possible. This is crucial, as she can aid you with your defense.

Different Types of Drug Crimes

Some of the common drugs which are often associated with drug charges are: Cocaine, Crack, Heroin, LSD, Marijuana, Methamphetamine, Mushrooms, Oxycodone, PCP, Percocet, Prescription Drugs, Speed, and Synthetic drugs.

Illegal use, possession or distribution of any the above drugs can lead to very serious charges against an individual, which in turn could lead to serious and long-lasting consequences and punishments.  As with any other serious charge, time is of the essence in drug crimes.  It is best to seek the professional advice of a drug crimes attorney as soon as possible.

Castles

Different Levels of Drug Crimes and Offenses

There are five degrees of felony drug crimes. There are also misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor level drug crimes in Minnesota.  They include:

First Degree Drug Offense/Controlled Substance Crime/Felony

  • Possession/Sale/Manufacturing

Second Degree Drug Offense/Controlled Substance Crime/Felony

  • Possession/Sale/Manufacturing

Third Degree Drug Offense/Controlled Substance Crime/Felony

  • Possession/Sale/Manufacturing

Fourth Degree Drug Offense/Controlled Substance Crime/Felony

  • Possession/Sale/Manufacturing

Fifth Degree Drug Offense/Controlled Substance Crime/Felony

  • Possession/Sale/Manufacturing

Marijuana in a Motor Vehicle/Misdemeanor

  • Possession of a Small Amount of Marijuana/Petty Misdemeanor
  • Possession of Paraphernalia/Petty Misdemeanor

While possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle is a misdemeanor, the other five degrees of drug offenses are considered felonies.  If a person is convicted of misdemeanor possession of marijuana in a motor vehicle, a person’s driver’s license may also be revoked or suspended.  In Minnesota, a petty misdemeanor is not considered a crime.  Under federal law however, a petty misdemeanor is considered a crime.

Drug Crime Punishments

As with any felony conviction, the penalties associated with drug crime charges may be quite severe.  A felony drug conviction can result in imprisonment of up to 30 or 40 years and/or a fine of up to $1,000,000 or more.  A federal drug offense can result in life imprisonment.  Whatever the degree of the charge, if it is linked to drugs, it is highly recommended that you hire the services of an experienced Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer. 

One needs to understand that even a bit of delay may lead to very grave consequences.  It is best to hire a reputed Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer without any delay.  Lynne Torgerson, Esq. has been handling drug cases with success for over 29 years.  As a lawyer of repute and extensive legal knowledge, experience, and expertise, she has gained a thorough insight into the legal defenses associated with a drug crime charge. 

She understands the consequences of a drug crime conviction and is dedicated towards providing you with excellent legal representation in a court of law.  If you are looking for a lawyer of excellence, a drug crime attorney, call the law office of Lynne Torgerson for a free consultation right now!

Minneapolis Drug Possession Attorney
Scale of Justice

There are different degrees of drug crimes in the State of Minnesota. There are felonies and misdemeanors.

Felony Drug Charges

The most serious at the felony level is 1st degree controlled substance offense. For the most serious felony drug offenses, the maximum amount of time a defendant may face is 30 to 40 years in prison. At the state level in Minnesota, there is also 2nd degree controlled substance crime, as well as 3rd, 4th, and 5th. 

These are all felony level offenses, and, are categorized as crimes of violence.  If a person is convicted of a felony crime of violence, then they also lose their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms for the remainder of their life.

Possession, actual possession, construction possession, or sale of a controlled substance; giving away and sharing of drugs…Beware! The law also distinguishes between possession and sale. Possession can be actual, or constructive.  Actual possession is where you have an illegal substance on you. Constructive possession is where you can exercise dominion or control over the illegal drug.

Penalties are more severe for sales and manufacturing offenses., as opposed to possession of a controlled substance. Please note! Giving away and sharing a drug constitutes a “sale,” under the definition of the statute, which carry more severe penalties.

Misdemeanor drug crimes

There are also misdemeanor level drug offenses. The most serious misdemeanor drug related offense is probably driving with marijuana in your motor vehicle. This can cause a revocation of your driver’s license, a terrible inconvenience. The most common drugs in drug offenses are methamphetamine, crack, cocaine, marijuana, heroin, synthetic drugs, and mushrooms.

Informants and “cooperation”

Informants are also often used in drug cases. Beware of everyone with whom you are dealing, because they may currently be working against you, or, may do so in the future.  This can involve wearing a recording device, engaging you in a “controlled buy,” or testifying against you in court.  Law enforcement often use informants.  This usually occurs after someone has been arrested, and then they wish to try and cooperate, to get rid of potential charges, or, avoid going to prison.

Also, beware of “cooperating” to get a lesser a sentence, or not be charged, etc.  Often times, Drug Task Force agents make promises, that they do not later fulfill.  It is a good idea to get all cooperation agreements in writing, through your lawyer, in advance.  If you don’t, you may later regret it.

Potential Outcomes Include

Sometimes we are also able to work out settlement agreements where a felony will not go on your record. Other times, we are able to keep people from going to prison, or, from going to jail.

Lynne Torgerson began working in the criminal defense area in 1988, now approximately 31 years ago.   She has extensive experience in this area, and, has standards of excellence.  Please give her a call at (612) 339-5073 for representation in your case!

Scale of Justice - 1

Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer

If you find yourself charged in a criminal case, whether federal or local, and you seek representation in Minneapolis or throughout the state of Minnesota, contact Lynne Torgerson today for your free consultation.

Consultation Request

Our Victories

Victory by Minnesota Drug Charges Lawyer Lynne Torgerson;  82 grams of methamphetamine charge dismissed.

Criminal defense lawyer, drug charges lawyer, Lynne Torgerson, Esq., her client was charged with 1st degree possession of 82 grams of methamphetamine.  He/she, the client, had a lengthy criminal history, with a criminal history score of 6 or more. 

A conviction of same would thusly likely result in a very lengthy prison sentence.  A lengthy contested omnibus hearing was litigated, with several witnesses, about 10, testifying.  A squad video was also introduced as evidence, which shows the initial encounter of the vehicle containing four (4) occupants, the stop, seizure, and search of the car, the arrest, and the seizure of the container containing 82 grams of methamphetamine. 

Ms. Torgerson raised issues of probable cause for the charge, and, Fourth Amendment suppression issues.  The trial court took the matter under advisement.  The trial court then issued an opinion dismissing the 1st degree controlled substance crime charge on the grounds that the State had failed to establish probable cause to believe Lynne Torgerson’s client possessed the methamphetamine. 

Attorney Lynne Torgerson therefore won the dismissal of this 1st degree possession of methamphetamine case.  This result has removed the threat of many years in prison for her client.  Bravo Ms. Torgerson!

Drug Crimes Lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtains favorable resolution in felony drug crime charge.

Ms. Torgerson obtained a successful resolution of drug charges.  Her client was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a felony.  Very fortunately, Ms. Torgerson successfully obtained an agreement where the charge and conviction could be kept of her client’s record entirely, thus protecting his future. There was no conviction.  Excellent result Ms. Torgerson!

Drug Crimes Lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtains dismissal of possession of a controlled substance charge, synthetic drug.

Drug Charge Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtained a dismissal of a possession of a controlled substance case, a synthetic drug, out of the County of Washington, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had purchased a synthetic drug in the State of Illinois.

He then was driving from Illinois to North Dakota and was pulled over by an officer in the State of Minnesota.  The officer conducted a search of the vehicle, which turned up a synthetic drug.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a synthetic drug.

Ultimately, Ms. Torgerson obtained a dismissal of the case before probable cause was found.  This result kept this off Ms. Torgerson’s client’s criminal record, important for her client’s future employment opportunities, etc.  Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson obtains continuance for dismissal of vaping in airport charge.

Lynne Torgerson obtained a continuance for dismissal of a vaping in airport charge.  This type of charge is a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $1000 fine.  Ms. Torgerson’s client had no prior criminal record.

Kindly, the prosecution agent was willing to grant some mercy and agreed to a continuance of dismissal.  This means that provided the defendant essentially pays costs and remains crime free, in 1 year, the case will be dismissed, thus keeping Ms. Torgerson’s client’s record clean.

A clean record is something very important to protect.  Well done Ms. Torgerson, client, and prosecution agent!

Drug Crimes Lawyer Lynne Torgerson successfully keeps felony 5th degree possession of a controlled substance off of client’s record.

Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson successfully kept a felony 5th degree possession of a controlled substance off of her client’s record.  She did this by obtaining a stay of adjudication in his case.  A stay of adjudication is where someone pleads guilty to the offense, but a conviction is not entered, and, if they successfully complete probation, then, at the end of probation, the case is dismissed.

This means there is no conviction, and their record is kept clean.  This can be very important for things such as long-term career opportunities and employment.  In this case, Ms. Torgerson’s client received a stay of adjudication on the felony 5th degree possession of a controlled substance and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.

Then, after he completed his probation, the case was dismissed, keeping his record clean of any felony conviction.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Drug Crimes Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins motion to suppress in 5th degree possession of methamphetamine case.

Lynne Torgerson won a motion to suppress in a 5th degree possession of methamphetamine case, out of the County of Freeborn, State of Minnesota, the Honorable Ross Leuning presiding.  David Walker, Esq. represented the State.

After a traffic stop for driving after a revoke driver’s license, and a search of defendant’s person after a dog sniff was conducted of the vehicle, during which the dog went around the vehicle two (2) times, defendant was charged with 5th degree possession of methamphetamine.

A contested omnibus hearing was litigated.  The Court concluded that a lack of reasonable suspicion existed to believe evidence of a crime would be found on the defendant and that the officer(s) had acted only on a hunch.  Consequently, defendant’s motion to suppress was GRANTED.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins dismissal of 5th degree possession of methamphetamine case out of the County of Freeborn, State of Minnesota.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson won a dismissal of a 5th degree possession of methamphetamine case out of the County of Freeborn, State of Minnesota.  Ms. Torgerson’s client was charged with 5th degree possession of methamphetamine after a traffic stop of a vehicle in which he was a passenger.

A subsequent search of the driver, passengers, and vehicle were conducted after the stop of the vehicle.  A motion to suppress was granted.  Lacking any evidence on which to proceed, a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause was granted.  The 5th degree possession of methamphetamine case was dismissed.  Well done Ms. Torgerson.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson Can Represent You On Forfeiture Cases

Minneapolis Drug Crimes Lawyer Lynne Torgerson wins return of vehicle in forfeiture of motor vehicle case.

Lynne Torgerson won a forfeiture of motor vehicle case out of the County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. Ms. Torgerson’s client had been found to have been in possession of cocaine in his motor vehicle, a Chevrolet Blazer.

Minnesota law allows a person’s vehicle to be forfeited if a felony amount of a controlled substance is found in his vehicle.  Fortunately, Ms. Torgerson won the return of her client’s motor vehicle, a Chevrolet Blazer. Well done Ms. Torgerson!

Case Law Updates

Drugs Dealing

Whether the claimant’s claim was timely because the items sought were not listed in forfeiture notice?

Appellants county sheriff’s office and county attorney argued that the trial court erred by granting a petition for the return of seized property because claimant failed to file a timely demand for judicial determination of forfeiture regarding the property.  Holding that the service of a statutorily compliant notice of seizure and intent to forfeit is a precondition to the running of the 60 day deadline and noting that the trial court’s finding that the items in the property receipt were not part of the notice that listed items that were subject to forfeiture was not clearly erroneous, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the county’s jurisdictional argument failed.  Affirmed. Christensen v. Kelly, A20-1159, Wabasha County. Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that search of body cavity not reasonable under Fourth Amendment.

This case requires a determination as to whether a body cavity search performed by forcing the defendant to be strapped down and sedated and to undergo an invasive anoscopy against his will as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that (1) when determining whether a search conducted within a person’s body is reasonable, a court considers the extent to which the procedure may threaten the safety or health of the person, the extent of the intrusion upon the person’s dignitary interests in personal privacy and bodily integrity, and the community’s interest in fairly and accurate determining the guilty or innocence of the individual; and (2) the extreme and substantial intrusion of defendant’s dignitary rights by a coerced anoscopy and the risks that the procedure posed to defendant’s health and safety outweigh the community interest in retrieving potential evidence that defendant possessed a controlled substance, particularly where no exigent circumstances existed.

State v. Brown, A17-0870, Minnesota Supreme Court (2019).

Whether the Drug Sentencing Reform Act is to be applied retroactively? Fortunately, yes.

Defendant argued that he was entitled to resentencing under the new sentencing grid created by the Drug Sentencing Reform Act (the DSRA).  Noting that defendant’s sentence was not yet final when the DSRA became effective, the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant was entitled to resentencing in accordance with the DSRA.  Reversed and remanded.

Johnson v. State, A18-1983, Polk County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

The observance of petty misdemeanor drug offense does not give rise to probable cause for arrest of felony possession of a controlled substance.

Defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained by an allegedly illegal entry, arrest, and search.  After stipulating to the State’s case under Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.01, subd. 4, the trial court found defendant guilty of 5th degree possession of a controlled substance.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the officers’ observation of the drug related petty misdemeanors did not give the officers probable cause to arrest defendant for felony possession of a controlled substance.

State v. Peterson, A18-1969, Anoka County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether a sentence on two counts of 1st degree possession of a controlled substance should have been Hernandized.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree possession of cocaine with intent to sell after St. Paul police found cocaine in his car, and, two days later, Minneapolis police found cocaine in his apartment.  The trial court sentence defendant on both counts.

Defendant appealed, arguing that one of his convictions must be vacated because the offenses were both part of the same course of conduct and were a single behavioral incident.  He contended that the trial court exaggerated the criminality of his conduct by Hernandizing his sentences.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that defendant’s convictions resulted from different behavioral incidents.  Affirmed.

State v. Jones, A19-0373, Ramsey County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

No knock entry for search of cocaine.

Defendant challenged his convictions of aiding and abetting first degree sale of cocaine, arguing that (1) the trial court erred by denying his suppression motion and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of aiding and abetting first degree sale of cocaine.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the unannounced entry was supported by the requisite reasonable suspicion, noting that allegations in the warrant application of a high level of suspected drug trafficking, the number of people observed coming and going, a criminal record, and a gun being associated with the drug trafficking, presented sufficiently particularized circumstances that supported a reasonable suspicion of a threat to officer safety or a threat of destruction of evidence.  Affirmed.

State v. Rayford, A18-1504, St. Louis County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Controlled substance crime conviction based on accomplice testimony sufficiently corroborated.

Defendant argued on appeal that:  (1) his convictions for 3rd degree controlled substance crime and contributing to the delinquency of a minor should be reversed because the accomplice testimony was not sufficiently corroborated; (2) sentences on both convictions must be vacated because the offenses were part of the same behavioral incident.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals found sufficient corroboration, noting that an undercover agent provided direct evidence of defendant’s participation in the sale of Suboxone.  However, defendant could only be sentenced for one conviction since the offenses were part of a single behavioral incident.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State v. Wortman, A18-1850, Brown County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Partial appeal waiver in below guidelines sentence for drug offense.

Defendant appealed the below guidelines sentence imposed after defendant pleaded guilty to a drug offense pursuant to a plea agreement containing a partial appeal waiver.

Where defendant’s appellate argument challenged an essential element of the offense of conviction, defendant’s appeal fell within the scope of the appeal waiver.  Judgment affirmed.

United States v. Wadden, 18-3340, appealed from the Southern District of Iowa, per curiam.

Appellate court upholds sentence in federal court methamphetamine case.

Where a defendant challenged her sentence in a methamphetamine conspiracy case, the judgment is affirmed because the defendant did not show that the trial court erred in failing to consider factors beyond substantial assistance in granting a downward variance.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. McFeron, 18-1605, appealed from the Southern District of Iowa, per curiam.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Police officer qualified expert re drug packaging.

Where a defendant in a drug trafficking case challenged the admission of testimony from a detective about drug packaging, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing his testimony as evidence because the detective had the knowledge, skill, experience and training to qualify him as an expert in drug trafficking.  Further, sentence was properly enhanced based on the defendant’s three Missouri convictions.  Judgment affirmed.

United States v. McDaniel, 18-1477, appealed from the Western District of Missouri, Benton, J.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Firearm found in proximity to drug trafficking offense.

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug user in possession of a firearm.  Defendant’s presentence report included a 4 level enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with distribution of marijuana.  Over objection, the District Court sentenced defendant to 46 months in prison.

Where police found evidence of defendant’s drug trafficking offense in the same location of his firearm, the government was not required to prove that the firearm facilitated the trafficking offense.  Affirmed.

United States v. Lyes, 18-1488, appealed from the Northern District of Iowa, per curiam.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Evidence sufficient to uphold convictions of 1st degree controlled substance crime.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of 1st degree controlled substance crime.  On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  When executing a search warrant at apartment where defendant was staying with 3 other men, officers found 4 small plastic bags of cocaine under the couch cushion where defendant slept.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that as a whole the circumstances proved excluded any reasonable inference other than defendant’s guilt of constructively possessing cocaine.  Affirmed.

State v. Medina, A19-0149, Dakota County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Evidence was sufficient to convict of loitering with intent to sell narcotics.

Defendant challenged his conviction of loitering with intent to solicit the illegal sale, distribution, purchase, or possession of narcotics.  Defendant contended that his conduct did not amount to loitering with the meaning of the Minneapolis ordinance.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that evidence that defendant stood against an abandoned building located in a high crime area for over 18 minutes, and that police saw him conduct to hand to hand transactions that were consistent with narcotics sales was sufficient to support his conviction.  Affirmed.

State v. Brown, A18-1735, Hennepin County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Sentence for possession of methamphetamine in federal court.

Where a defendant challenged the substantive reasonableness of his sentence in a methamphetamine case, the District Court expressly considered the defendant’s difficult upbringing.  However, the District Court explained that his recent criminal history outweighed his mistreatment, so the decision to deny the request for a downward variance was not an abuse of discretion.  Judgment is affirmed.

United States v. Fitzpatrick, 18-3312, appealed from the Northern District of Iowa, Smith J.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

FORFEITURES

$42,830.00 cash forfeited for failure to properly serve.

This appeal challenged the trial court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an administrative forfeiture proceeding because appellant failed to properly serve a demand for judicial determination of forfeiture.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that because there was no dispute that appellant failed to mail an acknowledge of service with his demand for judicial determination, his attempted service by mail did not comply with the requirements of the forfeiture statute and, therefore, did not commence a forfeiture action.  Affirmed.

Lautigar v. $42,830.00 in U.S. Currency, A19-0188, St. Louis County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Prejudicial evidence in 3rd degree sale of a controlled substance trial.

Defendant was convicted of 3rd degree sale of a controlled substance in Redwood County, State of Minnesota.  Defendant appealed arguing that it was plain error for the trial court to admit into evidence an exhibit identifying defendant as a drug dealer and a gang member.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that there was no plain error, noting that there was nothing to suggest that the outcome of the trial was affected in any material way by the two isolated references in one document to defendant’s drug and gang history.  Affirmed.

State v. Clay, A19-0250, Redwood County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Defendant’s motion to suppress heroin found in rental car sustained.

Defendant’s motion to suppress heroin found in rental car was denied by the District Court.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that defendant had standing to challenge the search, since he had permission from his wife to operate the rental car.  However, defendant’s actions during the traffic stop and search, including giving a false identification and changing his story, as well as a positive canine alert, were sufficient to give probable cause for a search.  Affirmed.

United States v. Bettis, 18-2407, appealed from the District of Minnesota, Kobes, J.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Was the evidence sufficient to convict for 3rd degree controlled substance crime?

Defendant was convicted of 3rd degree controlled substance crime.  On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the task force did not observe money change hands between the informant and himself.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the informant’s testimony aligned with the officers’ testimony of the buys whereby the only reasonable inference is that defendant sold Vicodin to the informant on two occasions.  Affirmed.

State v. Branson, A19-0367, Hubbard County, State of Minnesota.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Defendant’s conviction for possession of methamphetamine reversed.

Defendant was convicted of 5th degree possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia in the County of Nobles, State of Minnesota.  Defendant was a back seat passenger in a minivan in which methamphetamine and paraphernalia were found.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals in a rare case, reversed defendant’s conviction based upon circumstantial evidence on the grounds that these circumstances did not exclude a reasonable inference that the methamphetamine and pipe were in the minivan before defendant entered and that he did not know they were there.  Reversed.

State v. Hinds, A18-1267, Nobles County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Improper Spriegl evidence reverses conviction in Hennepin County.

Defendant was convicted of controlled substance crime involving possession of methamphetamine.  On appeal, defendant argued that the State had introduced improper Spriegl evidence that defendant had committed a prior robbery in relation to a deal involving a substantial amount of drugs.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals held this was plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights.  Defendant’s conviction reversed.

State v. Bartel, A19-0022, Hennepin County.

Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Inventory search of vehicle after valid impoundment upheld as valid.

Defendant was convicted of 2nd degree controlled substance crime in Cass County, State of Minnesota.  Defendant challenged the inventory search of his vehicle following its impoundment.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the inventory search of defendant’s vehicle on the grounds that his vehicle was properly impounded because it was parked, in the middle of the night, on the should of a bridge, near a location where two highways merge, making it a traffic hazard.  Affirmed.

State v. Roybal, A19-0733, Cass County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Confidential informant tip and dog sniff.

Gawd! . . . If you ever hear these two phrases in the same paragraph the result certainly can’t be good . . . .

Defendant was convicted in federal district court of possession with intent to distribute.  Defendant’s vehicle was stopped.  A confidential informant’s tip was the basis for the police conducting a dog sniff.  Defendant brought a motion to suppress, which was denied.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the search concluding that the confidential informant’s tip provided reasonable suspicion for the dog sniff, and that the traffic stop was not impermissibly extended.  Affirmed.

United States v. Harry, 18-2221, appealed from the Northern District of Iowa, Smith, J.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Minor role reduction of sentence in federal court methamphetamine distribution case.

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.  After a sentencing hearing, the District Court denied defendant’s request for a minor role reduction, but sentenced defendant to the low end of the applicable advisory sentencing guidelines range.

Defendant appealed the denial of the minor role reduction.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that where a defendant knowingly participated as a drug mule, took steps to obtain transportation and to package and conceal the drugs he transported, the District Court did not err in denying a minor role reduction.  Affirmed.

United States v. Benite, 18-3047, appealed from the Eastern District of Arkansas, per curiam.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Aid and abet controlled substance crime.

Defendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a controlled substance crime and he appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s conviction on the grounds that (1) the jury could have inferred defendant’s knowledge and intent to further the commission of the crime based on his presence at the scene, (2) his close association with the dealer before and after the crime, and (3) his flight from the scene of the crime with the dealer.

State v. Walker, A19-0546, Stearns County.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Lawyer was not attorney of record in this case.

Reasonable suspicion is required for a dog sniff.

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree controlled substance sale.  Defendant argued that the trial erred in finding that police had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct a dog sniff outside his apartment.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that informant’s substantial history of reliability and officer’s corroboration of defendant’s identity, residence, and truck was sufficient.  Affirmed.

State v. Bravo, A19-0667, Ramsey County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Constructive possession of methamphetamine determines venue.

Defendant was convicted of a methamphetamine drug conspiracy.  On appeal, defendant alleged that the government had failed to prove the element of venue.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal held that the government had proved that defendant constructively possessed methamphetamine in the Northern District of Iowa, thus properly establishing venue.  Additionally, a three (3) level sentencing enhancement for being a manager was sustained.  Affirmed.

United States v. William Hill, 19-1408, appealed from the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, per curiam.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Defendant’s motion to suppress inventory search granted.

Defendant was convicted of a controlled substance crime.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the inventory search of the vehicle he was driving.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred by finding that dispatch informed the officer that the owner reported the vehicle missing.

Further, because the officer did not have adequate information regarding whether the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment, and, there was no other reason necessitating the impoundment, the inventory search was constitutionally infirm.  Reversed.

State v. Walz, A19-0918, Dakota County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Should the court have departed downward in sentencing for 1st degree sale of 50 grams of cocaine?

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree controlled substance crime.  Defendant had testified that he possessed and planned to sell at least 50 grams of cocaine.  At sentencing, the defendant argued for a downward durational departure.

The trial court sentenced defendant to the bottom of box on the Sentencing Guidelines, and denied the motion for a downward departure.  On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that 50 grams was roughly three (3) times the amount mentioned in the statute, and therefore defendant’s conduct was not less serious than typical for that offense.   Accordingly, the motion was denied.  Affirmed.

State v. Miller, A19-1179, Hennepin County.

Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Did the trooper unreasonably expand the scope of the traffic stop?

Defendants were driving a pick up truck through a county on the interstate, to which was mounted a camper.  A Minnesota State Trooper stopped the pick up for a cracked windshield violation.  The Trooper asked the defendant to exit the pickup and sit in the front seat of the Trooper’s patrol car while he conducted an investigation into the cracked windshield violation.

The Trooper searched the attached camper and found a large quantity of marijuana.  Defendants moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that the Trooper unconstitutionally expanded the scope of the stop.  The trial court granted the motion.

The State appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Trooper unreasonably expanded to scope of the investigative stop, in violation of the 4th Amendment, by asking defendant to exist the pickup and sit in the front seat of the Trooper’s Patrol Car while he investigated the cracked windshield violation.

State v. Desroches, A19-1651, Douglas County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Circumstantial evidence rule is often a strong valid defense.

Defendant was convicted of 1st degree sale of methamphetamine, 1st degree possession of methamphetamine, being a felon in possession of ammunition, and being a felon in possession of an electronic incapacitation device, a stun gun.

The drugs and stun gun were found in the basement of a care that defendant operated.  Defendant argued on appeal that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support his convictions of possession and sale of methamphetamine and possession of a stun gun.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s convictions, concluding that the circumstances proved were not inconsistent with the reasonable alternative hypothesis that one or more of the care’s employees possessed the drugs and stun gun, rendering the evidence insufficient.  Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

State v. Yernatich, A19-0841, St. Louis County.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Beware federal court:  a defendant’s sentence can be made significantly longer for prior petty misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia convictions in State court.

Defendant was charged in federal court and convicted.  At sentencing, the District Court included one point for each of defendant’s two (2) prior state convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia.  In State court, possession of paraphernalia are a petty misdemeanor, and convictions thereof are treated as being not a criminal offense.

However, in federal court, in sentencing, these convictions can be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence, meaning making a defendant’s sentence in federal court significantly longer.  Herein, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not err in enhancing defendant’s sentence because of her State court possession of paraphernalia convictions.

United States v. Walker, 19-2216, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District court, Northern District of Iowa.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove possession with intent to distribute?

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute drugs and possession with intent to distribute.  Defendant appealed.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld defendant’s convictions on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence because the testimony was consistent with intent to distribute, he was not sharing drugs for personal use, and it was not a mere buyer-seller case.  Affirmed.

United States v. Little, 19-2729, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, District of South Dakota.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether the identity of the confidential did not need to be disclosed?

Defendant was charged with a controlled substance crime.  Defendant brought a motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.  The trial court denied defendant’s motion.  On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it refused to compel the disclosure of the identity of the confidential informant.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err because the defendant failed to show why the informant’s identity was material, and, defendant never sought to call the informant as a witness,.  Affirmed.

United States v. Neal, 10-1289, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Arkansas.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether reduction of a defendant’s sentence for drug possession in federal court was not justified under the First Step Act?

Defendant was convicted in federal court of drug possession.  Defendant sought reduction of his sentence under the First Step Act, which was denied.  Defendant appealed.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld denial of sentence reduction under the First Step Act on the grounds of quantity of drugs, obstruction of justice, and the use of a firearm.  Affirmed.

United States v. Moore, 19-3187, Benton, J.  Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Nebraska.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the sentencing enhancements?

Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute a mixture containing heroin.  The government proved sentencing enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence.  The district court then varied downward from the advisory guidelines range and sentenced defendant to 158 months in prison, with 5 years supervised release.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence of a spatial and temporal relationship between the seized drugs and firearms, and, that defendant had been using a residence to manufacture and distribute drugs.  Hence, the sentencing enhancements were not erroneous.  Affirmed.

United States v. Brumley, 19-2144, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Minnesota.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Sentencing enhancement in federal drug conspiracy case.

Defendant pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy.  The District Court sentenced defendant to a 4 level enhancement.  The enhancement was for defendant’s leadership role, since defendant’s acts showed his significant authority and high level participation in the operation.

Defendant also attempted to impeded prosecution of his girlfriend, justifying enhancement for obstruction of justice.  Further, the sentence was substantively reasonable.  Affirmed.

United States v. Zambrano, 19-1781, Smith, J.  Appealed from the United States District court, Western District of Arkansas.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Sentencing enhancements in federal drug conspiracy case.

Defendant appealed his sentencing enhancements in his federal drug conspiracy case.  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that (1) enhancement for acting as a manager was proper because the defendant managed or supervised at least one other participant in the conspiracy; and (2) enhancement was proper based upon defendant knowing that the drugs were imported.

United States v. Felix Aguirre, 19-2332, per curiam.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether black people were not underrepresented in the jury pool to challenge the racial composition of jury venire?

Defendant was convicted of drug conspiracy and gun charges in federal court.  On appeal, defendant argued that his convictions should be reversed on the grounds that black people were underrepresented in the pool of potential jurors.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that defendant failed to show that black people were underrepresented in the pool of potential jurors sufficient to challenge the racial composition of the jury venire.  Affirmed.

United State v. Reed, 19-2487, Appealed from the United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Kelly, J.

Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Whether defendant’s conviction of distribution of crack and heroin should be reversed on the grounds the court erred in response to jury question?

Defendant was convicted of distributing crack and heroin.  During jury deliberations, the jury returned with a question for clarification of the term “on or about.”  The court responded by instructed the jury to re-read the jury instructions.

Defendant appealed his conviction for distribution of crack and heroin.  On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed defendant’s conviction on the grounds that the trial court did not err by instructing the jury to re-read the jury instructions.

United States v. Stevenson, 19-3224, Loken, J.  Appealed from the United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.

Minneapolis Drug Attorney & Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Our Drug Lawyer Lynne Torgerson represents clients throughout Minnesota including the following cities and counties:  Minneapolis, St. Paul, the Twin Cities, Hennepin County, Ramsey County, Anoka, Anoka County, Becker County, Beltrami, Benton, Big Stone, Blaine, Blue Earth, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Brown, Burnsville, Carlton, Carver, Cass, Chaska, Chippewa, Chisago, Clay, Clearwater, Cook, Coon Rapids, Cottonwood, Crow Wing, Crystal, Dakota, Dodge, Douglas, Eden Prairie, Edina, Excelsior, Faribault, Fillmore, Freeborn, Golden Valley, Goodhue, Grant, Hastings, Hennepin, Hopkins, Houston, Hubbard, Isanti, Itasca, Jackson, Kanabec, Kandiyohi, Kittson, Koochiching, Lac Qui Parle, Lake, Lake of the Woods, LeSueur, Lincoln, Lyon, Mahnomen, Maple Grove, Maplewood, Marshall, Martin, McLeod, Meeker, Mille Lacs, Minnetonka, Morrison, Mound, Mower, Murray, New Brighton, New Hope, Nicollet, Nobles, Norman, Olmsted, Otter Tail, Pennington, Pine, Pipestone, Plymouth, Polk, Pope, Ramsey, Red Lake, Redwood, Renville, Rice, Robbinsdale, Rock Roseau, Saint Louis Park, Scott, Sherburne, Sibley, St. Anthony, St. Louis, St. Paul, Stearns, Steele, Stevens, Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wabasha, Wadena, Waseca, Washington, Watonwan, Wilkin, Winona, Woodbury, and Wright.  Lynne Torgerson, Esq., a lawyer of excellence, represents clients throughout the entire State of Minnesota.

Contact Lynne Torgerson, Esq. today at (612) 339-5073 for a free consultation. Our law firm can help you with our qualified Drug Charges Lawyer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and throughout the State of Minnesota.