Cited by

“A search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is generally unreasonable.” State v. Flowers , d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007).

“A search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is generally unreasonable.”

State v. Flowers , , 248 (2007).

“A search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is generally unreasonable.”

“When probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without a warrant.”

When the facts are not in disput e, as here, we review the pretrial decision de novo and “determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” -48 (Minn. 2007).

(“offi cer safety is a paramount interest”); -52 (Minn. 2007) (deferring to officer’s inferences and deductions when articula ting reasonable suspicion because of special training they receive).

“A search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is generally unreasonable.”

“A search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is generally unreasonable.” (Mi nn.

In State v. Flowers, the supreme court reiterated the “admonition that jury instructions indicating that a particular fact may be inferred from other particular facts, if proved, should be avoided.”

One exception exists when police “have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect might be engag ed in criminal activity” and police “reasonably believe[] the suspect might be armed and dangerous.” State v. Flowers , (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884 (1968)).

When we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress where the facts are not in dispute, as here, we review the decision de novo and 4 “determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” -48 (Minn. 2007).

The supreme court has summarized Terry as follows: “[E]ven in the absence of probable cause, the police may stop and frisk a person when (1) they have a reasonable articulable suspicion that a suspect might be engaged in criminal activity and (2) the officer reasonably believes the suspect might be armed and dangerous.” (quotations omitted); accord Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884 (1968).

“[B]y virtue of the special training they receive, police officers articulating a reasonable suspicion may make inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.” -52 (Minn. 2007).

Under Terry, “even in the absence of probable cause, the police may stop and frisk a person when (1) they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a suspect might be engaged in criminal activity and (2) the officer reasonably believes the suspect might be armed and dangerous.” (quotation omitted).

(noting that the defendant’s “suspicious movements” and failure to comply with the police officers’ requests made it reasonable for the officers to fear for their safety).

DECISION When reviewing a pretrial ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court “review[s] the facts to determine whether, as a matter of law, the [district] court erred when it failed to suppress the evidence.”

(enumerating the five factor test for determining whether police have exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry stop) (citing United States v. Raino, 980 F.2d 1148, 1149-50 (8th Cir. 1992)).

For example, the automobile exception permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant if “probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband.”

“A search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is generally unreasonable.”