Cited by

(stating that dismissal of charges following suppression of evidence meets critical-impact requirement).

“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).

“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 6 de novo.” (quotation omitted).

(stating that the dismissal of charges following suppression of evidence meets the critical-impact requirement).

Gayles, d at 10 (citing Lugo, d at 483; ).

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

1 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.” 1 Johnson does not raise his Fourth Amendment challenge in this appeal.

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.’” ().

d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454–55 (1971).

d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).

(noting that reasonable suspicion is a legal question reviewed de novo).

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

Motion to suppress “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).

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

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

(discussing when inventory searches are constitutional).

7 need be suppressed.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).

“We may independently review facts that are not in dispute, and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “may independently review facts that are not in dispute, and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quotation omitted).

The scope of the search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe the object may be found.”

A warrantless search is “per se unreasonable.”

“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).

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

In reviewing the pretrial order denying Brehmer’s motion to suppress, 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 , (quotation omitted).

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

“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.” (quotation omitted).

Appellate courts “may independently review facts that are not in dispute, and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quotation omitted).

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

“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, [appellate courts] review the district court’ s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).