Cited by

This court does not consider such arguments unless prejudicial error is “obvious on mere inspection.” 1 1 At the beginning of his pro se brief, appellant writes “‘A conviction may not be obtained simply by piling inference on top of [i]nference,’” and under that statement “U.S. v. Vallo, 238 F.3d 1242” and “U.S. v. Ruiz, 105 F.3d 1492.” The full citations for the quoted language, or parts of it

“[T]he reasonableness of a search depends on governmental compliance with the Warrant Clause, which requires authorities to demonstrate probable cause to a neutral magistrate and thereby convince [them] to provide formal authorization to proceed with a search by issuance of a particularized warrant.”

(declining to consider pro se claims on appeal that are not supported “by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).

12 provide formal authorization to proceed with a search by issuance of a particularized warrant.” see also U.S. Const. amend.

(“We will not consider pro se claims on 6 appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

() (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

Pro se litigants, like those represented by attorneys, must support their claims with “either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

“The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always the reasonableness in all circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.” (quoting Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 108-09 (1977)).

An appellate court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

-23 (Minn. 2008) (deeming claim waived because it was unsupported by argument or legal authority).

- 23 (Minn. 2008) (noting that this court does not consider pro se claims on appeal that are not supported by argument or citation to legal authority).

(stating that this court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in ap

An appellate court need not “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial er

We do not “consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

(stating that this court need “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in app

(rejecting unsupported claims).

v. Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc., see Brodsky v. Brodsky , d 471, 479 (Minn. App. 2007) (applying Wintz in a family -law appeal); (stating the supreme court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal tha t are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”) Even if we consider the issue, however, our review discloses that neither of the challenged statements is based on facts outside the record.

-23 (Minn. 2008) (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

See State v. Bartylla , -23 (Minn. 2008) (declining to consider pro se arguments on appeal that are not supported by argument or citation to legal authority).

State v. Reek , –66 (Minn. 2020) ().

The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “[w]e will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” ().

See State v. Bartylla , (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

But Peterson presents no legal argument or citation to legal authority to support any claim of error, and no prejudicial error “is obvious on mere inspection.” -23 (Minn. 2008).

This court “will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority .” - 23 (Minn. 2008); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be c onsidered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

d 8, 22-23 (Minn. 2008).

17) (declining to expand Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to require a search warrant for police to enter a home to arrest a short-term guest); (declining to expand Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to protect against warrantless searches of garbage containers set out for collection); –19 (Minn. 2008) (declining to expand Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to prohibit collection of DNA samples from convicted felons); D-13 Anderson, d at 140 (

“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.” (citations omitted); see also State v. Myhre , (stating that an issue is forfeited when it is not adequately argued or explained); (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument

As such, we deem these claims waived, and we will not consider them unless “prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.” d 727, 741 (Minn. 2011) (“Claims contained in a pro se supplemental brief with no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the allegations are deemed waived”) (quotation omitted); (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).

See State v. Bartylla , (“We will not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”).

See State v. Bartylla , -23 (Minn. 2008).

(declining to consider pro se defendant’s argument offered without supporting legal authority); ( noting that “[a]n assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities .

(“A defendant must provide argument or legal authority for [her] pro se claims, unless any error is obvious upon inspection, or the claims will be deemed waived.”).

We need “not consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority.”

See State v. Bartylla , (stating appellate courts “will n o t consider pro se claims on appeal that are unsupported by either arguments or citations to legal authority”).

See State v. Bartylla , -23 (Minn. 2008) (holding pro se claims waive d because they lacked “supportive arguments and/or legal authority”).