Cited by

See Westrom, d at 153 (“A search occurs when the government intrudes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy to gain information.”) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (observing that whether a search is constitutionally reasonable generally depends on whether the government complies with the warrant clause “by obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate based upon probable cause”).

Instead, relying on Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f), the State moved the 1 A buccal swab is a method of DNA collection that “involves gently swab[bing] the inside of the cheek [with a sterile cotton swab].” (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(“We presume Minnesota statutes are constitutional and will strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if absolutely necessary.”).

Under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, all individuals are guaranteed the right to “equal protection of the laws.” (quotation omitted); see also U.S. Const. amend.

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

1, leads to different outcomes between persons who are similarly situated “in all relevant respec ts.”

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

The federal and state equal-protection clauses are “analyzed under the same principles.” (quotation omitted).

Ultimately, the “touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

To make this dete rmination, we ask whether “ ‘the claimant is treated differently from other [persons] to whom the claimant is similarly situated in all relevant respects.’ ” () (emphasis added).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” State v. Johnson , (Mi nn.

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

The general rule is that appellate courts “presume Minnesota statutes are constitutional and will strike down a statute as unconstitutional only if absolutely necessary.”

The federal and state equal - protection provisions are “analyzed under the same principles.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

2 “The touchstone of the Fourth Am endment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is r easonableness.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (Mi nn.

An equal -protection violation occurs when the law treats an individual differently from others who are “similarly situated in all relevant respects.”

State v. Johnson , , 11 (Minn. 2012).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quoting United States v. Knights , 534 U.S. 112, 118, 122 S. Ct. 587, 591 (2001)).

See State v. Johnson , , 11 (Minn. 2012) (citation omitted).

“The touchstone of the 5 Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).

The federal and st ate equal- protection doctrines are “analyzed under the same principles.” State v. Johnson , (quotation omitted).

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 514 (1967)

Minnesota courts analyze both clauses “under the same principles,” and mandate that all “similarly situated individuals shall be treated alike, but only invidious discrimination is deemed constitutionally offensive.” (quotation omitted).

The federal and state equal- protection provisions are “analyzed under the same principles.” (quotation omitted).

“The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” (quotation omitted).

“The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the very heavy burden of demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is unconstitutional.” (quotation omitted).

Because the district court’s voluntariness finding is not clearly erroneous, we conclude that the warrantless search of Crocker’s breath was justified by his consent.1 (stating that “[e]stablished exceptions to the warrant requirement include .