Cited by

The state defended the search of Lindekugel’s vehicle under the “automobile exception” to the warrant requirement.

Under the automobile exception, police may “search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of eviden ce or contraband.” d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

One exception to the warrant requirement is the “automobile exception,” under which the police may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers inside, if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he totality of the circumstances includes reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret 6 circumstances differently than untrained persons.” d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016).

One exception to the warrant requirement is the “ automobile exception,” which allows police officers to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).

One exception to the warrant requirement is the “automobile exception,” under which the police may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers inside, if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” ( quotation omitted).

Automobile Exception The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers in th e vehicle, “if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” ( quotation omitted).

Under the automobile exception, a police officer may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers in that vehicle, if there is “probable cause 4 to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).

4 The automobile exception provides that if the police have “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband,” d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (), “they may search every part of the vehicle and its contents which may conceal the object of the search.”

Under the auto mobile exception, the warrantless search of a vehicle includes any “closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).

act.” (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to wa rrant a reasonably prude nt person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).

e state responds that the officers’ actions were permissible under another exception to the warr ant requirement—the automobile exception.5 The automobile exception a llows police to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circ umstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that th e vehicle contains contraband.” State v. Lester , (quotation omitted).

Additionally, an officer may consider reasonable inferences drawn from the facts “based on [his] training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained 5 persons.” State v. Lester

State v. Lester , (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).

to the specific reasonable inferences which [the officer] is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience ” (emphasis added)); (stating that training and experience are relevant because “police officers may interpret circumstances differen tly than untrained persons”); State v. Martinson , (Page, J., dissenting) (“[T]he state must articulate what it is about the officer’s training and ex

A probable-cause inquiry includes “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons.”

“Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” 71 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitte d).

A probable-ca use inquiry includes “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumst ances differently than untrained persons.”

And Albantov’s attorney did challenge the vehicle search by asserting a lack of probable cause under the applicable motor-vehicle exception to the warrant requirement, which permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant “if there is probable cause to believe t he search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” State v. Lester , 11 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

(stating that appellate courts give “due weight” to reasonable inferences because, “based on their training and experience, .

“Probable cause is an objective inquiry,” that includes “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons.”

The motor-vehicle exception permits a police officer to s earch a n automobile if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” State v. Lester , (quotation omitted).

that the seizure occurred once the trooper asked respondent to step out of the vehicle so that she could search the vehicle, and both parties acknowledge 9 that the motor-vehicle exception is at issue.1 The motor-vehicle exception allows a trooper to search a vehicle if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the circumstances in each case.”

Furthermore, under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “the police may search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable 7 cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).

The “automobile exception” allows police to “search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to belie ve that the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (citation and quotation omitted).

The totality of the circumstances “includes reasonable inferences that 6 police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons.”

A police officer has probable cause to search under the automobile exception “when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).

“We review de novo a [postconviction] court’s determination of probable cause as it relates to a warrantless search.”

“Probable cause is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the circumstances in each case.”

See, -70, 772 (Minn. 2016) (stating that police corroborated the details of a CRI’s tip by observing a man described by the CRI arrive at the location identified by the CRI within the specified tim eframe).

Determining whether probable cause exists “is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the circumstances .” State v. Lester

See State v. Willis , (upholdi ng search of a vehicle where police officer observed, in plain view, a firearm); see also State v. Lester , (stating that, under the “automobile exception,” police “may search a car without a warrant, including closed contai ners in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband” (quotation omitted)).

“One such exc eption is the automobile exception, under which the police may search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotations omitted).

One exception to the warrant requirement is th e “automobile exception,” under which a police officer may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers in that vehicle, if there is “probable cause to believe that the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quoting State v. Search , ).

Automobile exception Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant if police have “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or 6 contraband.” State v. Lester , (M inn.

Probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances, including “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience.”

In an opinion filed on February 10, 2016, the supreme court reversed, concluding that the district court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion because “the search of [appellant’s] car was lawful under the automobile exception.” -73 (Minn. 2016).