Cited by

d 163, 178 (Minn. 2007).

The district court explained that, “[b]ecause there is no caselaw that directly addresses the issue of whether a violation of section 626.14 warrants rescission under section 171.177,” it was “apply[ing] principles of criminal law to determine whether rescission is warranted.” which considered whether a violation of section 626.14 required suppression of evidence in a criminal proceeding, and reasoned that, although the blood draw was in violation of section 626.14, suppression of the resulting

A general warrant “specifie[s] only an offense and le[aves] the decision of whom to arrest and where to search to the discretion of the official executing the warrant.”

Minnesota applies the exclusionary rule, or fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, which provides that, “[g]enerally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.” -78 (Minn. 2007); see Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484-88 (1963) (establishing the fruit- of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine).

ionary rule to “deter[] unlawful government conduct” and “promote[] the public perception of fairness in the judicial process” (emphasis omitted)); (excluding evidence obtained through illegal search “to eliminate the incentive for police officers who have detained a person on a Terry stop to overstep the limits of the stop”); -80 (Minn. 2007) (excluding illegally obtained evidence because “the police conduct involved is capable of repetition and .

d 163, 168 (Minn. 2007).

General warrants are those that “specif[y] only an offense and [leave] the decision of whom to arrest and where to search to the discretion of the official executing the warrant.”

“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.” –78 (Minn. 2007).

5 “Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.” .

0 (Minn. 2007) (recognizing the Hudson holding but not reaching the question whether it applies to knock -and-announce violations under the Minnesota Constitution).

v. Jackson, d 163, 175 (Minn. 2007).

State v. Jackson , -78 (Minn. 2007).

See State v. Jackson , -78 (Minn. 2007) (noting that evidence obtained in viola tion of the Constitution must generally be suppressed).

See State v. Jackson , 178 -80 (Minn. 2007) (distinguishing the unannounced search in Hudson from the invalid nighttime search in Jackson and declining to address as unnecessary an argument that Minnesota should reject Hudson on state constitutional grounds).

- 78 (Minn. 2007) (“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.”).

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654-55, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1691 (1961); State v. Jackson , -78 (Minn. 2007).

But we “independently review the facts to determine whether, as a matter of law, the [district] court erred in its ruling.” State v. Jackson

8 See Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 804, 104 S. Ct. 3380, 3385 (1984) (noting that exclusionary rule applies to “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or fruit of the poisonous tree” (quotation omitted)); -78 (Minn. 2007) (“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.”).

See State v. Jackson , , 178 (Minn. 2007) (recognizing that evidence seized as a result of a warrant lacking particularized probable cause must be suppressed); see also United States v. Solomon , 432 F.3d 824 , 827 (8th Cir. 2005) (stating that when no evidence outside of the affidavit to a search warrant is submitted to the issuing judge

State v. Jackson , , 168 (Minn. 2007).