Cited by

“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 , (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, ‘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.” State v. Gauster , 4 (Minn. 2008) (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).

d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).

“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.” 5 (quotation omitted).

(stating that critical impact is present if suppression of evidence leads to dismissal of charge).

“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 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.” (quotation omitted).

robation conditions and, as such, “the district court erred in finding that the assessor’s recommendation was a court-imposed probation condition.” “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 and citation omitted).

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).

“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).

“Generally, warrantless searches are 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).

d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).

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.” (citation and quotation omitted).

We may, however, address an issue for the first time on appeal if “the issue will not work an unfair surprise on a party” and the record “permits us to address such an issue.” (quotation omitted).