Cited by

In reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, courts “must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a decision to issue a search warrant, “our only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

We “consider the totality of the circumstances alleged in the supporting affidavit” and do not “review each component of the affidavit in isolation.” d 380, 385 (Minn. 2016) (quoting Wiley, d at 268) (internal quotation marks omitted).

-87 (Minn. 2016); d 151, 166 (Minn. App. 2024), rev. granted (Minn. May 29, 2024).

We afford the issuing judge great deference, “recognizing that doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the 13 preference to be accorded to warrants.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

ngs”: “Documents showing occupancy”; “Digital pictures prior to and during the search”; “Computers such as laptops, desktops, and or 6 A court may “construe a warrant with reference to a supporting application or affidavit if the warrant uses appropriate words of incorporation, and if the supporting document accompanies the warrant.” Groh, 540 U.S. at 557–58

In other words, the particularity requirement prevents “general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” Andresen, 427 U.S. at 480 (quotation omitted); (“This requirement prohibits law enforcement from engaging in general or exploratory searches.” (quotation omitted)).

We review only the warrant application and supporting affidavits to determine if “the issuing judge ‘had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.’ ” –85 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Rochefort, 9 ).

(Stras, J., dissenting) (“[I]n an appropriate case .

“When reviewing a judge’s decision to issue a search warrant,” the appellate court’s “only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

We also recognize “that doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.” (quotations omitted).

And the supreme court has reiterated that Lindquist “recognized a very narrow good-faith exception to the D-5 exclusionary rule” and declined to extend the good-faith exception beyond “reliance on binding appellate precedent.” (quotation omitted); (Lillehaug, J., dissenting) (declining to join the portion of Justice Stras’s dissent which announced his interest adopting the federal good-faith exception in full).

“[W]hen determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

And when we review a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant, we determine whether there was a “substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

When determining whether probable caus e supports the issuance of a search warrant, “our only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probab le cause existed.” State v. Fawcett , (quotation omitted).

The particular ity requirement “prohibits law enforcement from engaging in general or exploratory searches .” State v. Fawcett

But when appella te courts review the decision to issue a search warrant, the “only consideration is whether the issuing judge ‘had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.’” ().

Instead, our “only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” d 380, 384 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

d 380, 384 (Minn. 2016).

In determining whether probable cause supports the issuance of a search warrant, this court considers “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing a judge’s decision to issue a search warrant, [an appellate court’s] only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Fawcett , -85 (Minn. 2016).

(requiring consideration of “whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.” (quotation omitted)).

This court reviews a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant to see if there was a “substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Fawcett , (quotation omitted).

5 “When reviewing a judge’s decision to issue a search warrant, [an appellate court’s] only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

We review a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant to see if there was a “substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

Instead, our “only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantia l basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

Instead, our “only consideration is whether the issuing judge ha d a substantial basis for conc luding that probable cause existed.” State v. Fawcett , (quotation omitted).

When reviewing a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant, appellate courts consider whether the issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

State v. Fawcett , -85 (Minn. 2016).

Even with a warrant, police are not permitted to engage in “general or exploratory searches.” d 380, 387 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).