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).