Cited by

In State v. Dickey, we held that constructive possession can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt if the contraband is located (1) “near papers and personal documents bearing the suspect’s name”; (2) “close to the suspect’s clothing or personal property”; or (3) “in a room used as a bedroom by the suspect.” (holding that defendant had constructive possession over contraband kept in a closet near her clothing).

“A [postconviction] court’s determination as to whether a police officer had sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search or seizure is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

at 288; see Sam, d at 834 (stating that when there is not exclusive possession of the location, one cannot automatically infer possession of the contraband); (stating that more facts, such as a suspect’s personal items near the contraband or contraband within a suspect’s bedroom, must be found in order to support a conviction for possession).

1; see also State v. Dickey , ( “A police officer may convey to an arresting officer probable cause to arrest arising from information not known to the arresting officer.

d 792, 796 (Minn. App. 2013).

See State v. Dickey , (stating that probable cause to arrest exists when “a person of ordinary care and prudence woul d entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed”).

The probable- cause standard “is less demanding and requires far less evidence than pr oof beyond a 5 reasonable doubt.” (quotation omitted).

687, 695 (Minn. 1997) (stating that probable cause to arrest exists when the “ objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed ”); State v. Florine , 303 Minn. 103, 105, (outlin ing requ irements of constructive possession); (“A person may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.” (quotation omitted)).

See, State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390, review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).

ution and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” “Under both the federal and state constitutions, subject only to a few specifically established and well- delineated exceptions, searches or seizures conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable.” (quotations omitted).

See Salyers, d at 159; Florine, 303 Minn. at 105, d at 611; -97 (Minn. App. 2013).

8 Probable cause “exists when the ‘objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.’” ().

there is a strong probability that the suspect was exercising or had exercised dominion or control over the controlled substance.” -97 (Minn. App. 2013) (emphasis added).

“A police officer with probable cause to arrest the driver of a vehicle may stop the vehicle to make the arrest.”

“[C]onstructive possession need not be exclusive, but may be shared.” Smith, d at 770

“Probable cause to arrest a suspect exists when the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).