Cited by

See State v. Ortega , ; State v. Robb , 6 ; (stating that brief handcuffing does not necessarily constitute an arrest).

See State v. Ortega , n.1, 149 (Minn. 2009) 9 Not every incriminating response to police questioning is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

State v. Ortega , , 149 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).

1 (2016) (stating that a t raffic violation is generally a petty misdemeanor); (“The crime for which probab l e c a u s e [ t o arrest] exists must be one for which a custodial arrest is auth orized.”); Minn. R. Crim.

State v. Ortega , d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009) .

d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009).

(discussing that “mere proximity to criminal activity” is insufficient to establish probable cause for contraband possession).

4 D E C I S I O N 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 defer to the district court’s credibility determinations

State v. Ortega , , 149 (Minn. 2009).

When reviewing a district court’ s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence when the facts are undisputed, we determine, “as a matter of law, wh ether the evidence need be suppressed.” 4 () (applying de novo review of pretrial order pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.

In addition, a person may also “constructively possess contraband jointl y with another person.” State v. Ortega

(stating “[a] person may constructivel y possess contraband jointly with another person”); Florine, 303 Minn. at 105, d at 611 (discussing exclusive control).

A law enforcement officer may order a passenger to get out of a lawfully stopped vehicle despite having no individualized basis to do so, without offending either the United States or the Minnesota Constitution s. Maryland v. Wilson , 519 U.S. 408, 414 15, 117 S. Ct. 882, 886 (1997); State v. Ortega , State v. Krenik , review denied (Minn. Jan.

While the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed this court’s decision in Ortega I in State v. Ortega (Ortega II), d 145, 151-52 (Minn. 2009), it did so on very different grounds.

“Warrantless searches are generally unreasona ble unless they fall w ithin a recognized warrant exception.”

2010) () (undertaking de novo review of pretrial order pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.

Pimentel challenges the district court’s reasoning by citing State v. Ortega , for the proposition that the officers must have probable cause that he in particular was engaged in criminal activity.

icle then the search was justified under the automobile exception); see also State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (observing a search was justified after two officers detected the odor of marijuana); (stating that the odor of marijuana has historically provided an officer with probable cause to search), aff’d, (“It ha s long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evid

See, (upholding car search under automobile exception based on marijuana odor ); State v. Ortega , (same), aff’d

see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 414-15, 117 S. Ct. 882, 886 (1997).