Cited by

A search occurs “when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.” (quotation omitted).

(concluding “that the narcotics dog sniff” of a package at the airport “was a search that required reasonable, articulable suspicion that the package contained contraband”), aff’d on other grounds

2 “Although not binding on Minnesota state courts, Eighth Circuit caselaw can be persuasive.” aff’d on other grounds

“We will not reverse a correct decision by the district court simply because we disagree with its reasoning.” ( ), aff’d on other grounds

“We will not reverse a correct decision by the district court simply because we disagree with its reasoning.” (), aff’d on other grounds

But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted).

aff’d on other grounds, ; (“We may affirm the district court on any ground, including one not relied on by the district court.”), rev. denied (Minn. Oct.

Although only persuasive, 6 federal caselaw states that 6 (addressing authorities from other states and federal courts), review denied (Minn. June 29, 2010); -17 (Minn. App. 2013) (addressing Eighth Circuit in particular), aff’d on other grounds

To determine whether the suspicion was reasonable, this court applies “an objective, totality-of-the-circumstances test to the articulated and particularized facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure.” (), aff’d on other grounds

“[L]egal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.”

“But legal determinations, such 6 as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted).

But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted).

[that] is expressive and inextricably linked to [a] protected message.” Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 477-78 (8th Cir. 2010); (“Although not binding on Minnesota state courts, Eighth Circuit caselaw can be persuasive.”), aff’d on other grounds

“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, the district court’s factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.” cert.

are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted).

In light of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s we disagree and affirm the district court’s order.

are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted), cert.

But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted), cert.

(citation omitted), cert.

But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted), cert.

But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted).

But legal determinations, such as whether there was a seizure and, if so, whether that seizure was unreasonable, are reviewed de novo.” (citation omitted).