Cited by

While the reasonable, artic ulable suspicion sta ndard is “not high,” State v. Bourke , (q uotation omitted), it “requires at least a minimal level of objective justification” for the stop, Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123, 120 S. Ct. at 676.

d 922, 927 (Minn. 2006).

741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)); (“[W]e give ‘great deference to the issuing judge’s determination’ of probable cause for a search warrant.” ()); Rochefort, d at 804 (same); (“[T]he resolution, of doubtful or marginal cases s

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

We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and, on review, we give great deference to the district court’s credibility determinations.

(d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999)).

some showing to the magistrate that the warrant can only be executed successfully in the nighttime.’’ (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).

3 DECISION “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in its ruling.” ().

The supreme court has held that courts should “avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.”

791 n. 1 (Minn.1999); , 864 n. 4 (Minn.1991); , 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990); , 269 n. 2 (Minn.1985); , 929 n. 7 (Minn.2006) (resolving the issue on statutory grounds and declining to consider the good-faith exception articulated in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 , 126 S.Ct.

(noting that “the reasonable suspicion showing is not high” (quotation omitted)).

For a nighttime search to be authorized under Minn. Stat. § 626.14, the search warrant application must “establish at least a reasonable suspicion 4 that a nighttime search is necessary to preserve evidence or to protect officer or public safety.”

But it requires more than an unarticulated hunch; police must show “something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” (quotation omitted).

determination that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found,” see Upton, 466 U.S. at 733, 104 S. Ct. at 2088 (quotation omitted), particularly in light of the “great deference [owed] to the issuing judge’s determination of probable cause for a search warrant,” (quotation omitted).

(“We review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.”); (stating the standard for reviewing district court’s reasonable-suspicion

But the standard for reasonable suspicion is “not high,” requiring only “something more than an unarticulated hunch, that the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” d 922, 927 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted).

of whether a nighttime search warrant should be authorized under Minn. Stat. § 626.14.” –28 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).