Cited by

It is the state’s burden to “demonstrate that the connection between the unlawful conduct and the challenged evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the taint of the unlawful conduct.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

–22 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

–18 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

v. Barajas, (defendant’s fingerprint found on the bag of drugs); State v. Porter, 674, N.W.2d 424, 427 (Minn. App. 2004) (defendant admitted to police that the drugs were his); State v. Porte , (witness testified that he gave defendant the drugs).

A person seeking to invoke these constitutional rights must demonstrate both “a subjective expectation of privacy” in the area searched and “that the expectation of privacy is reasonable.” rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

2 See Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 396–97 (2014) (recognizing that cellphones include “many sensitive records previously found in the home” and a “broad array of private information”); (noting that cellphones are “capable of storing substantial amounts of private data, including address books and photographs”).

(holding that Minnesota courts consider, among other factors, intervening circumstances and whether evidence would have been obtained in the absence of illegality in determining whether evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree”)

9 -23 (Minn. App. 2012), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

But we have warned that a police officer giving expert testimony utilizing a drug-courier profile to establish guilt is “plainly inadmissible.” (Mi nn.

13 More recently, this court considered the admissibility of drug-dealer - review denied (Minn. Oct.

In addition, courts look to an o fficer’s representations and omissions , State v. Bunce , , review denied (Minn. 2003), and whether a suspect understood the representations and statements of the requesting officer , State v. Barajas

15 “The inevitable-discovery doctrine applies when officers possess lawful means of discovery and are, in fact, pur suing those lawful means prio r to their illegal conduct.” State v. Barajas , review denied (Minn. Oct.

“When the police obtain a person’s consent to search after unlawful police conduct has occurred, the state must demonstrate both (1) that the subs equently obtained consent was voluntarily given and (2) that the connection between the u nlawful conduct and the evidence is so attenuated as to dissipate the evidence of the ‘taint’ of the unlawful conduct.” State v. Barajas , (quoting United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 975 (8th Cir. 2006)), review denied (Minn. Oct.

“When determining whether a person has exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy, cour ts should focus their inquiry on the individual’s conduct and whether the individual sought to preserve something as private.” State v. Barajas , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.

at 2489-91; (noting that cell phones are capable of “the creation and storage of private data that the owner does not intend for others to view”), review denied (Minn. Oct.

Because we determine that the prosecutor committed misconduct by inflaming the passions of the jury a nd vouching for the credibility of witnesses, we next turn to a consideration of whether the error “si gnificantly affected the verdict.” State v. Barajas , review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

Nelson’s reliance on State v. Barajas , review denied (Minn. Oct.

(concluding that jury could reasonably infer that appellant possessed methamphetamine with intent to sell based on large quantity of methamphetamine and a digital scale recovered from appellant’s apartment), review denied (Minn. Oct.

“All evidence obtained during an unlawful search is inadmissible to support a conviction unless an exception to the exclusionary rule applies.” State v. Barajas , review denied (Minn. Oct.

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2495 (2014) (“Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple—get a warrant.”); (holding that a search warrant is required for a search of a cell phone), review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

review denied (Minn. Oct.

(stating that photographs showing a defendant with unusually large sums of money are relevant to establishing intent to sell controlled substances), review denied (Minn. Oct.

-20 (Minn. App. 2012), review denied (Minn. Oct.

icari, d at 254-55 (remanding to determine if physical evidence would have been inevitably discovered on defendant): (considering but rejecting the use of the exception for a cigarette package): (applying the exception to drug found in the defendant’s jacket sleeve); (denying use of exception to photographs from a cellular phone), review denied (Minn. Oct.

At a postconviction evidentiary hearing, appellant’s review denied (Minn. Oct.

the taint of the unlawful conduct.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct.

The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be.”); (recognizing that constitutional protection extends to “sealed letters or packages in the mail”), review denied (Minn. Oct.

We recently held that “a person has the same reasonable expectation of privacy in the concealed digital contents of a cellular telephone as a person has in the concealed physical contents of a container.” -17 (Minn.App.2012), review denied (Minn. Oct.