Cited by

Our precedent instructs that “[w]e do not reach constitutional issues if there is an alternative path to resolving the case.” (“[O]ur general practice is to avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The reasonable-suspicion showing is “not high.” (quotation omitted).

4 As we have explained before, we generally “avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The “reasonable suspicion” standard is “not high.” ().

In our review of pre-trial motions to suppress, “we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.” ().

The reasonable suspicion standard is “not high.” (quotation omitted).

ions, challenges those findings and conclusions and also argues that “[t]he statutes at issue, Minn. Stat. § 202A.12, and the first two lines of § 202A.13, are unconstitutional.” Because constitutional issues have been raised, we are mindful of our “general practice,” which is “to avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.” ( n.7 (Minn. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

d 922, 927 (Minn. 2006).

“[W]e give great deference to the issuing judge’s determination of probable cause for a search warrant,” including “whether a nighttime search warrant should be authorized under Minn. Stat. § 626.14.” - 28 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).

The reasonable suspicion showing is “not high,” (quotation omitted), but requires more than an unarticulated “hunch,” (quotation omitted).

The standard for reasonable suspicion is “not high,” requiring “something more than an unarticulated hunch, that the officer must 7 be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” (quotations omitted).

(noting that “[o]ur general practice is to avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided” (alteration in original) ( n.7 (Minn. 2003))).

“[T]he reasonable suspicion showing ‘is not high.’” (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997)).

The reasonable-articulable-suspicion standard is “not high.” (quotation omitted).

Admissibility of out-of-court statements made during FAC interview “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether th e district court erred in its ruling.” State v. Bourke

The reasonable suspicion showing is “not high,” but requires more than an unarticulated “hunch,” d 390, 393 (Minn. 2008).

“When reviewing pretrial orders on a motion to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in its ruling.” State v. Bourke , (citation omitted).

“The district court’s factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.”

The reasonable suspicion showing is “not high.”

In addition, the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that “the reasonable suspicion showing is ‘not high,’” State v. Bourke , (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin , 520 U.S. 385, 39 4, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 1422 (1997)), and requires “a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop,” Timberlake, d at 393 (quoting Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123, 120 S. Ct. at 676).

“[T]he reasonable suspicion showing is ‘not high .’” State v. Bourke , (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 1422 (1997)).

“[T]he reasonable suspicion showing is ‘not high.’” (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin , 520 U.S. 385, 394 , 117 S. Ct. 1416, 1422 (1997)).

“[T]he reasonable suspicion standard ‘is not high.’” (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S. Ct. 1416 (1997)).

ighttime search outside those hours is necessary to prevent the loss, destruction, or removal of the objects of the search or to protect the searchers or the public.” To satisfy this requirement, “the application for the warrant must establish at least a reasonable suspicion that a nighttime search is necessary to preserve evidence or to protect officer or public s afety.” State v. Bourke

(noting general practice to avoid a constitutional ruling where a case can be decided on another basis).

See State v. Bourke , , 926 (Minn. 2006) ("Our general practice is to avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.") (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“[T]he reasonable suspicion showing is ‘not high.’” (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin , 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 1422 (1997)).

The reasonable-suspicion standard is “not high.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he reasonable suspicion showing is ‘not high.’” (quoting Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S. Ct. 1416, 1422 (1997)).

State v. Bourke , d 922, 928 (Minn. 2006).

The reasonable, articulable suspicion standard is “not high.” d 922, 927 (Minn. 2006) (quotation o mitted); Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.