Cited by

“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and ‘determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.’” (-48 (Minn. 2007)).

we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause requires something more than mere suspicion but less than the evidence necessary for conviction.”

“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an ad equate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

Probable cause exists “when a person of ordinary care a nd prudence, viewin g the totality of circumstances objectively, would entertain an honest and st rong suspicion that a specific individual has committed a crime.” (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted).

“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and ‘determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.’” (citation omitted).

When facts are not in dispute, as is the case here, we review “a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine 6 whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

Nevertheless, reviewing courts may address constitutional or other issues “when the interests of justice require their consideration and when doing so would not work an unfair surprise on a party.” State v. Williams

“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police arti culated an adequate basis fo r the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

When the facts are not in dispute, as is the case here, “we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.”

“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (-48 (Minn. 2007)).

Timberlake, d at 394 ; see also State v. Williams

This is because “the existence of probable cause depends on all of the facts of each individual case.” State v. Williams , 11 (emphasis added); (“[A] collection of pieces of information that would not be substantial alone can combine to create sufficient probable cause.”).

[appellate courts] review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” See State v. Williams , (quotation omitted).

“A warrantless arrest is reasonable if supported by probable cause.” State v. Williams

the constitutionality of a statute.”

[appe llate courts] review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

(“[W]e may choose to address .

we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause requires something more than mere suspicion but less than the evidence necessary for conviction.”

4 D E C I S I O N “When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and ‘determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.’” (-48 (Minn. 2007)).

11 Generally, we do not “consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions.”

“A warrantless arrest is reasonable if supported by probable cause.” State v. Williams , 871 (Minn. 2011).

The state relies on State v. Timberlake , and State v. Williams , as support for its position that the peace-officer language creates an exception and not an element.

the overall presumption of innocence operates to shi ft the burden back onto the state to show the invalidity of the permit, or violation of the terms of the permit.” (quotation omitted).

(“We ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when thos e issues are .

But the existence of probable cause depends on the totality of the circumstances, , and includes circumstances that are individually innocent or noncriminal, d 532, 543 (Minn. App. 2005).

Ker v. California , 374 U.S. 23, 34 -35, 83 S. Ct. 1623, 1630 (1963) (plurality opinion); State v. W illiams

the United States and Minnesota Constitutions and that compelling circumstances warranted a downward dura-tional departure, Williams did not raise these *508 issues in the district courts, Appellate courts “ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions.”

challenges to the constitutionality of a statute.”

Although an arrest without a warrant is presumed unreasonable, “[a] warrantless arrest is reasonable if supported by probable cause.”

(“[The court] ordinarily do[es] not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal procedure or are challenges to the constitutionality of a statute.” ()).

(“When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and ‘determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.’ ” (quoting Flowers, d at 247-48)).