Cited by

DECISION “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“To have a protected privacy interest, an individual must have a subjective expectation of privacy, and the subjective expectation must be reasonable, i.e., one that is recognized by society.” () (other citations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2010); see also id.

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

When reviewing a district court’s pretrial suppression order, appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” (quoting State v. Jordan , ).

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

DECISION “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484 (1963)

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court ’s legal determinations de novo.’” 5 (Minn. 2008) ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” 5 (Minn. 2008) ().

Similarly, law-enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a home at 6:00 a.m., again in mid-December, "during the period defined by statute as being nighttime."

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a mo tion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’ ” ().

On appeal of a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews “the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and 6 the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”

rant, found child 7 pornography in plain view, a nd acted reasonably when they secured an amended warrant before searching Kramer’s apartment.1 When reviewing a district court’s pret rial order denying a motion to suppress evidence, “we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s lega l determinations de novo.” State v. Jordan

5 D E C I S I O N I. District court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” State v. Gauster , 502 (Minn. 2008) ().

“When reviewing a district court’s 9 pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneo us standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” State v. Gauster , (quoting State v. Jordan , ).

7 “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidenc e, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’ s legal determinations de novo.” State v. Jordan

When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we evaluate “the distri ct court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s leg al determinations de novo.”

Jackson , d at 167 -69 , 174 ; State v. Jordan , , 153-54 (Minn. 2007).

e implied consent procedure; and (3) the district court made erroneous factual findings.1 “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we r eview the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’ ” ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” 4 (Minn. 2008) ().

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the 4 district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().