Cited by

must be counted in the criminal history score as a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor conviction.” 10 The Minnesota Supreme Court’s – 21 (Minn. 1990), –36 (Minn. 2007), further lead us to conclude that Hippe was convicted of a felony rather than a gross misdemeanor and is therefore prohibited from possessing a firearm, despite the downward durational departure that he received.

See State v. Anderson , -40 (Minn. 2007) (holding that reasonable suspicion may support law enforcement’s warrantless search of a probationer’s house).2 We d ecline to extend probationer caselaw to persons subject to 2 The state also cites caselaw that is distinguishable and not helpful.

4 An appellate court reviews the district court’s legal conclusions on the constitutionality of searches and seizures de novo.1

“Reasonable suspicion requires a sufficiently high probability that criminal conduct is occurring to make the intrusion on the [parolee’s] privacy interest reasonable.” (quotation omitted).

Consequently, “[w] arrantless residential searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

The argument fails because, although probation agents and probationers have a “special relationship,” the district court is not bound to follow a probation agent’s recommendation as to whether to revoke probation

App. P. 110.01 (the record on appeal includes “documents filed in the trial court, the exhibits, and the transcript of the proceedings”); n.4 (Minn. 2007) (stating that “[i]t is well settled that an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal” (quotation omitted)).

Anderson, n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted).

n.4 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Plowman, d at 583).

n improper interjection of personal opinion into the argument.” but see State v. Anderson, 7 (“Here, the prosecutor’s prefatory phrase ‘I suggest’ is the equivalent to ‘I submit’ or ‘the state submits,’ which Minnesota courts have held are not impermissible expressions of opinion.”), aff’d on other grounds, d 128 (Minn. 2007).

d 128, 139-40 (Minn. 2007).

(quotation omitted); see State v. Anderson , d 128, 137 (Minn. 2007) (concluding the same).

We generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, d 128, 134 (Minn. 2007), and we decline to do so here.

at 119-21, 122 S. Ct. at 591-92; (noting that Minnesota has historically recognized probationers’ reduced expectation of privacy).

Presumably, the majority expand s Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to provide greater protection to citizens of this state because it has determined “that federal precedent does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.” (quoting Kahn, d at 828).

Defense counsel then renewed a constitutional objection to the search conditions

Appellate courts “review de novo a district court’s ruling on 4 constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.” d 128, 136 (Minn. 2007).

State v. Anderson , -36 (Minn. 2007) (holding that Minnesota’s firearms prohibition statute applies to offenders who commit a crime of violence but receive a stay of imposition as well as prohibiting people convicted of “a crime of violence” from possessing firearms); see Minn. Stat. § 624.712, subd.

Appellate courts “review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitution al questions involving searches and seizures.” State v. Anderson

State v. Anderson , , 136 (Minn. 2007).

“[Appellate courts] review de novo a dist rict court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.” State v. Anderson

In addition, appellate courts “review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.”

Even if police have probable cause , a search conducted without a warrant is “presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Anderson , (citing Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 1380 (1980)).

-39 (Minn. 2007) (declining to consider a challenge to the validity of a probationary condition because the challenge was not raised and determined in district court ); (stating that appellate courts generally do not consider matters raised for the fir

The general rule is that “an appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal, and that matters not produced and received in evidence below may not be considered.” n.4 (Minn. 2007).

(concluding that no plain error occurred where prosecutor stated that witness “flat out lied” because prosecutor drew reasonable inference from evidence, “did not insinuate that he knew anything the jury did not, and he did not misrepresent any testimony”), aff’d

“We will not reverse the court ’s factual findings unless the findings are clearly erroneous or contrary to l aw.”

- 64 (Minn. 2010); see also State v. Anderson , (stating that an appellate court “review[s] de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures”).