Cited by

17 (rejecting the district court’s conclusion that the Minnesota Supreme Court had previously determined a state constitutional law question related to individualized suspicion for administrative warrants because the prior decision had “only assumed arguendo that individualized suspicion was require

General warrants are problematic because they authorize “a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.”

Safety, d 362, 366 (Minn. App. 1993), aff’d

Search Warrant), -68 (Minn. 2017).

n.14 (Minn. 2017) (declining to consider an incident “based on an unsworn statement”).

Search Warrant), (quotation omitted).

1 do “not limit our ability to analyze our constitution independently based on its text, structure, and history.” n.3 (Minn. 2017); see also Leonard, d at 156 n.9 (noting that, in the absence of controlling Fourth Amendment precedent, a litigant need not “articulate a principled basis to interpret Article I, Section 10 more broadly than the Fourth Amendment to receive relief”).

n.18 (Minn. 2022) (noting that the 1974 restructuring of the Minnesota Constitution “did not reflect substantive changes” but “was intended ‘only to make the Constitution more readable and stylistically correct’ ” ()).

“In all cases, we employ our independent judgment in interpreting the Minnesota Constitution.” d 152, 157 (Minn. 2017).

v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980) (recognizing that it is well within the “authority of the State to exercise its police power or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution”); City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , (noting that “we may interpret the Minnesota Constitution to provide greater protection to individuals than the United States Constitution”).

7 (rejecting an interpretation of the Minnesota Constitution that “would contra dict the official representation made to the voters that the 1974 changes were meant to ‘improve [the constitution’s] clarity .

crime detection device[s] at random and without reason.” 7 (quoting 7 (holding that under Minnesota law, “an administrative search warrant need not be supported by individualized suspicion of a code violation when the warrant issued by a district court satisfies an ordinance containing reasonable standards.”).

See City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , , 166-67 (Minn. 2017) ; Zeman v. City of Minneapolis , , 554 (Minn. 1996).

Kolton v. County of Anoka , , 411 (Minn. 2002) ; see also City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , , 157 (Minn. 2017) ("We favor uniformity with the federal constitution because of the primacy of the federal constitution in matters affecting individual liberties and to encourage consistency in constitutional law in state and federal courts."

See City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick , , 156 (Minn. 2017).

(explaining that the 1974 amendments to the constitution were intended to.