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 determination s de novo.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).

d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008) (quota tion 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.”); Harris, d at 98 (“Specifically, when th e

onclusion that the discovery of the black plastic bag and blanket-covered cooler was permissible because it took place in an “open field.” When reviewing a district court’s pretri al order on a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews “the district court’s fact ual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”

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

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s 6 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.” State v. Gauster

“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.’” ().

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 un der a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal dete rminations de novo.” State v. Gauster , (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 erroneo us standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” State v. Gauster , (quoting State v. Jordan , ).

“Generally, warran tless searches are per se unreasonable.”

“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster

4 “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 nov o.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted ).

Lopez asserts that a person can never be arrested for failing to have a valid driver’s license based on a footnote from State v. Gauster: “[L]ack of a driver’s license, by itself, is not a reasonable basis for subjecting the driver to a custodial arrest for a minor traffic offense.” n.3 (Minn. 200 8) (quotation omitted).

However, inventory searches are “a well- defined exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Gauster , (quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987)).

“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).

“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster , .

“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster

“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”

“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”

-09 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the state could not raise the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the issue was not raised at the district court, the record was insufficiently developed on relevant facts, and the district court made no findings of fact on that issue).

See, e.g. , Fellers v. United States , 540 U.S. 519 , 521, 124 S. Ct. 1019 , 1021, 157 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2004) ; State v. Gauster , , 501 (Minn. 2008) ; State v. Ihle , , 913 (Minn. 2002).

“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 det erminations de novo.” (quotation omitted).