Cited by

-43 (Minn. 2011) (providing that a stop is justified if specific, articulable facts lead officer to reasonably suspect person of criminal activity and that the reasonable-suspicion standard is “not high”).

Terry, 392 U.S. at 12-13, 88 S. Ct. at 1875; State v. Diede , d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011).

“The reasonable- suspicion standard is not high .” State v. Diede , -43 (Minn. 2011).

Terry, 392 U.S. at 13, 88 S. Ct. at 1875

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12-13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968); d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011).

Paul , , 172 (Minn. 2012) (reasonable person standard is an objective standard); State v. Diede , , 843 (Minn. 2011) (reasonable articulable suspicion requires an objective justification).

State v. Diede , (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 11 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-81 (1968)).

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968)

The reasonable- suspicion standard is not high, and “an actual violation is not necessary.” State v. Haataja , review denied (Minn. July 25, 2000).

−44 (Minn. 2011) (noting that only facts that existed at time of seizure are appropriate for consideration when determining whether officer had objective basis for seizing defendant).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” State v. Diede , –47 (M inn.

(discussing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

the actions of the police during the stop were reasonably related to and justified by the circumstances that gave rise to the stop in the first place.” (quotation omitted); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878-80 (1968).

State v. Diede , (quotation omitted).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [an appellate court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” -47 (Minn. 2011).

d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

d 836, 842-43 (Minn. 2011) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968))

(citing Terry v. Ohio, 4 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

4); (stating de novo review is appropriate where parties stipulate to record).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” State v. Diede , -47 (Minn. 2011).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [ the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” State v. Diede , -47 (Minn. 2011).

State v. Diede , (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

But this court “infer[s] consent less readily after a seizure because once arrested, a person becomes mo re susceptible to police duress and coercion.” (quotation omitted).

See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968)

–43 (Minn. 2011); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19–21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878–79 (1968).

“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” -47 (Minn. 2011).

“The reasonable -suspicion standard is not high.” State v. Diede , (quotation omitted).

When the pretrial order is a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal determinations de novo.”

(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).

the actions of the police during the stop were reasonably related to and justified by the circumstances that gave rise to the stop in the first place.” (quotation omitted); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878-80 (1968).

“The reasonable- suspicion standard is not high.” (quotation omitted).

Further, “[e]vidence obtained as a result of a seizure without reasonable suspicion must be suppressed.”