Cited by

A person seeking to invoke these constitutional rights must demonstrate “a reasonable expectation of privacy” in their person or in the “area or items searched.” State 8 v. McMurray , (holding that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage set on curb for collection); see Terry, 392 U.S. at 9 (recognizing “the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person”).

“As a separate source of rights, the Minnesota Constitution may under certain circumstances provide greater protection than the United States Constitution.”

“A party may not ‘obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.’” n.2 (Minn. 2015) (quoting Thiele, d at 582).

(outlining bases for deviating from the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the federal constitution in our interpretation of the Minnesota Constitution).

But “[a] party may not ‘obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.’” n.2 (Minn. 2015) (d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988)).

(“Any member of the public could have accessed McMurray’s garbage without trespassing on his property, and police do not need a warrant to search items that are exposed to the public.”).

Because the language of the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10 are substantially similar, “we will not construe the Minnesota Constitution as granting greater protection for individual rights unless there is a principled basis to do so.” -90 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Generally, “[a] party may not ‘obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.’” n.2 (Minn. 2015 ().

See State v. McMurray , see also Askerooth, d at 361-62.

“[T]he Minnesota Constitution gives a motorist a limited right to consult an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing for blood alcohol.”

at 167–68 (declining to extend broader protections under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution in the context of administrative search warrants); (declining to expand Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to require a search warrant for police to enter a home to arrest a short-term guest); (declining to expand Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to protect against warrantless searches of garbage containers set out for collection); –19 (Minn. 2008) (dec

State v. McMurray , , 689 n.1, 690 (Minn. 2015) (quotation omitted).

Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe , – 66 (Minn. 2014); (stating that Fourth Amendment’s language is “substantially similar” to language of article I, section 10 of Minnesota Constitution).

See Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 39-40, 108 S. Ct. at 1628; -95 (Minn. 2015).

ly” when (1) “the United States Supreme Court has made a sharp or radical departure from its previous decisions or approach to the law and when we discern no persuasive reason to follow such a departure”; (2) the United States Supreme Court has “retrenched on Bill of Rights issues”; or (3) federal precedent “does not adequately protect our citizens’ basic rights and liberties.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).

689 n.1 (Minn. 2015) (citation omitted).

(citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S. Ct. 507, 516 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring)) (stating that a person must have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area or item searched in order to invoke Fourth Amendment protections).

See, (holding that a warrantless search of garbage does not violate the Fourth Amendment) 5 (citing Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 40, 108 S. Ct. at 1629); Krech, d at 636-37 (holding no Fourth Amendment violation where garbage was left a few feet from a

is court should address the Minnesota constitutional argument because this precise issue is pending in the Minnesota Supreme Court” and “[t]he interests of justice would not be served by not reviewing the issue in this case if the Minnesota Supreme Court were to ultimately conclude the citizens of this [s]tate have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their garbage.” WL 5021206, at *3 (Minn. App. Sept.