Cited by

State v. Carter , , 209 (Minn. 2005).

“[T]he freshness of the information provided by the witness is an important factor for determining the probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).

Probable cause exists if “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” -05 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

But police cannot use a canine t o conduct a canine sniff “at random and without reason ,” State v. Carter , (quotation omitted), or out of “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity ,” Wiegand, d at 134 (quotation omitted).

See, -82 (Minn. 2007) (holding, in the absence of Supreme Court precedent, that a dog sniff in a hallway outside an apartment constitutes a search requiring a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity); (holding that a dog sniff of an area outside a storage unit was an unreasonable search under Article I, Section 10, despite being reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, when officers lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity); Askerooth, d at 362-63 (holding, co

“A person’s criminal record is among the circumstances a judge may consider when determining whether probable cause exists for a search warrant.” see United States v. Conley, 4 F.3d 1200, 1207 (3d Cir. 1993) (stating that the use of prior convictions to aid in establishing probable cause is not only permissible, but helpful, especially when the present matter involves the same criminal behavior as the previous conviction), cited with appr

“When examining whether a search was supported by probable cause, the ultimate question is whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” -05 (Minn. 2005) (quotation omitted).

Larcom correctly observes that, although Minnesota cases expressly hold that a criminal record is relevant when a judge considers whether to issue a search warrant, see, no Minnesota case has said specifically that police may similarly consider a criminal record when developing probable cause to search.

Ascher v. Comm’r of Pub.

■ the supreme court concluded that, under the Minnesota Constitution, a law-enforcement officer may conduct a dog sniff outside an outdoor storage unit that is within a secured storage facility if the officer is lawfully present in the place where the canine sniff is conducted and if the officer has a reaso

See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 657 (1961)

is an important factor for determining the probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” (quotation omitted), because a search-warrant affidavit must include evidence of “facts so 6 closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time,” (Minn. 19

See, (dog sniff of storage unit is a search); (short-term social guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy); see also Ascher v. Comm’r of Pub.

ory cannot be used to corroborate the informant’s tip because the warrant application did not state that he was convicted with a controlled substance crime, it stated that he was charged with controlled substance crimes.2 “A person’s criminal record is among the circumstances a judge may consider when determining whether probable cause exists for a search warrant.”

8 2003) (holding that mere presence of special license plates issued under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.60 does not support reasonable, articulable suspicion); (stating that a criminal record cannot form the sole basis for probable cause).

is an important factor for determining the probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” (quotation omitted), because a search-warrant affidavit must include evidence of “facts so closely related to 6 the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time,” (Minn. 1998

We have said that Article I, Section 10, and the Fourth Amendment are "textually identical,” although there are some differences in punctuation between the two provisions.

To be sure, “[a] person’s criminal record is among the circumstances a judge may consider when determining whether probable cause exists for a search warrant.”

(citation and quotation omitted).

The supreme court has also held that “a dog sniff is an unreasonable search unless police have at least reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity before conducting it.”

While the needed showing for reasonable suspicion is “not high” and “less demanding than [that for] probable cause or a preponderance of the evidence,” (quotations omitted), police may not use dog sniffs “at random and without reason,” (quotation omitted); see also Wiegand, d at 134 (“[T]he officer may not be motivated by mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted)).

175-76 & n. 5 (Minn.2007) (holding that narcotics dog sniff of common hallway outside defendant’s apartment was a search that required reasonable, articulable suspicion under Minn. Const, art. I, § 10); (holding that narcotics dog sniff outside self-storage unit was a search within the meaning of Minn. Const, art. I, § 10, and required reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity); -28, 136 (Minn.2002) (holding that narcotics dog sniff around exterior of