Cited by

2(5) (1976), n.2 (Minn. 2009) (clarifying Minnesota caselaw regarding “criminal amount of marijuana” for search incident to arrest exception).

(“The crime for which probable cause exists must be one for which a custodial arrest is authorized.”).

Our cases establish that when examining a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review “the district court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard,” and the “legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (emphasis added) ( (“This court affords great deference to an issuing judge’s findings of fact, which we will reverse only if clearly erroneous.

“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.” (quotation omitted).

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

d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009).

“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.” (quotation omitted).

“Warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they fall within a recognized warrant exception.”

When the underlying facts supporting a pretrial order on a motion to suppress are not in dispute, “We may independently review facts that are not in dispute and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (citation omitted).

“Warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they fall within a recognized warrant exception.”

4 a “person of ordinary care and prudence, viewing the totality of circumstances objectively, would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a specific individual has committed a crime.” (emphasis omitted).

(“[A] defendant must exercise dominion and control over the [contraband] itself in order to constructively possess it.”); (noting that “mere proximity to criminal activity” is insufficient to establish probable cause for arrest for possession of contraband).

(clarifying that probable cause is a test of reasonableness that applies regardless of the amount of marijuana that the vehicle’s occupants actually possesses), aff’d

r would have asked appellant his name and run the name through the police computer, thus revealing the warrant; appellant would have been arrested, n.2 (Minn. 2000) (once a warrant is 5 discovered, officers must make an arrest); a search would have been performed incident to the arrest, -50 (Minn. 2009) (listing search incident to a lawful arrest as one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement); and the cash would have been discovered.

Probable cause exists when a “person of ordinary care and prudence, viewing the totality of circumstances objectively, would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a specific individual has committed a crime.” (emphasis omitted).

Probable cause exists “when a person of ordinary care and prudence, viewing the totality of circumstances objectively, would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a specific individual has committed a crime.” d 145, 150 (Minn. 2009) (emphasis omitted).