Cited by

“To resolve whether a law enforcement officer faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant, [appellate courts ] appl[y] the-totality-of-the-circumstances approach,” which requires an “objective evaluation of the facts reasonably available to the officer at the time of the search.”

d 670, 677 (Minn. 2015).

at 149-56; see also Mitchell v. Wisconsin, 588 U.S. 840, 847- 57 (2019) (drunk-driving suspect was unconscious and, thus, unable to consent to breath test); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770-71 (1966) (drunk-driving suspect had caused automobile accident, which required officer’s attention); -78 (Minn. 2015) (DWI suspect caused fatal automobile accident, was hospitalized, and might have been airlifted to different hospital).

d 670, 677 (Minn. 2015).

When a case involves several charges

In a pretrial appeal, the state must show that “the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

d 670, 675 (Minn. 2015).

Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141, 148 (2013)

Aden claims that this rule does not apply, noting that the error must “significantly reduce[] the likelihood of a successful prosecution.” (quotation omitted).

See, (blood test in driving case ); (comments given to detective about sexual abuse), rev. denied (Minn. Aug.

The state may only appeal a pretrial ruling if “the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quotation omitted).

In a pretrial appeal, the state must show that “the district court’s alleged error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” (quoting Minn. R. Crim.

uestion is whether an exception such as exigent circumstances was present to justify law enforcement’s demand for a warrantless search of [his] blood or urine.” To support his argument that a warrantless request for urine and blood was not justified by the exigent-circumstances exception under the totality of the circumstances, Cibulka relied on McNeely , 569 U.S. 141, –78 (Minn. 2015).

Simply put, exigent circumstances exist when “there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.” (quoting Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509 (1978)).

Safety , -74 (Minn. 1988)

Relying on State v. Stavish , th e court took into account the importance of measuring Shaheed’s alcohol concentration within the two-hour window following Shaheed’s driving conduct .

See, e.g. , State v. Stavish , (applying a totality-of-the-circumstances approach to the reasonableness analysis us ed for warrant exceptions); In re Welfare of M.L.M.

elieve the suspect is on the premises; (e) whether it is likely the suspect will escape if not swif tly apprehended; and (f ) whether peaceable entry was made.” (citation omitted).7 “The exigent circumstances analysis requires an objective evaluation of the facts reasonably available to the officer at the time of the search.” State v. Stavish , (emphasis added).

Although we presume that a warrantless search or seizure is unreasonable, State v. Stavish , this presumption may be overcom e in some circumstan ces if an exception applies.

The state need not demonstrate that the challenged ruling will prevent it from establishing guilt on all charges; it is sufficient if “ exclusion of evidence would prevent the State from successfully prosecuting one of the specific charges .”

A warrantless search is “presumptively unreasonable.” State v. Stavish

See State v. Stavish , (stating that a warrantless seizure “is presumptively unreasonable”).

State v. Stavish , , 674 (Minn. 2015).

State v. Stavish , -75 (Minn. 2015).

(citing Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011)).