Cited by

The emergency-aid exception “is a subset of the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement” that applies “in circumstances when police are objectively motivated by the need to render aid or prevent injury.”

A district court in postconviction proceedings abuses its discretion “when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of 8 the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

are not dicta.” n.8 (Minn. 2018); accord State ex rel.

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Ries v. State , (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” (quotation omitted).

“A postconviction court abuses its discretion when it has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner, based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law, or made clearly erroneous factual findings.” Ries v. State , (quotation omitted).

Under the emergency -aid exception, an officer may open a car door if they reasonably believe there is an ongoing emergency and they have some “reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched.” (quotation omitted); see Overvig v. Comm’r of Pub.

d 620, 635 n.8 (Minn. 2018) (“Statements and conclusions based on the facts and legal issues before the court .

“Under the emergency-aid exception, officers may help an injured person or act to protect life or property if they have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property.” (quotation omitted).

Defendants do not “forfeit[] the right to challenge the district court’s for-cause ruling by not using an available peremptory challenge to remove the juror.” -35 (Minn. 2018).

5 Here, we note that the district court had no record from which it could have made any determination about the status or nature of Fohrenkam’s 5 See, 631 (Minn. 2018) (pat-frisk, community- caretaker, and exigent-circumstances exceptions); (automobile exception); (search incident to lawful arrest); -54 (Minn. 2003) (actual-a

“Appellate review of an issue can be forfeited when a party fails to raise the issue in the district court.” n.3 (Minn. 2017) (“[F]orfeiture refers to the failure to timely assert a right.”).

y, (Moore, III, J., dissenting) (arguing the court violated the principle of party presentation discussed in Greenlaw when it sua sponte reviewed a finding for clear error); Heilman v. Courtney , –400 (Minn. 2019) (Hudson, J., concurring) (explaining that in our adversary system, we follow the principle of party presentation); d 620, 641 (Minn. 2018) (Hudson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (explaining that the principle of party presentation “is more than a prudential r ule of co

See Ries v. State , (stating that issues not argued on appeal that were argued below are forfeited).

-88 (Minn. 2007); -34 (Minn. 2018).

“We consider a juror to be rehabilitated if he or she states unequivocally that he or she will follow the district court’s instructions and will set aside any preconceived notions and fairly evaluate the evidence.” Id.; see Ries v. State , aff’d

But a prospe ctive juror is not rehabilitated if he or she merely will “‘try,’ ‘do their best, ’ ‘think they could, ’ ‘think it would be hard,’ or ‘guess’ they could set aside their bias.” (quoting Fraga, d at 625), aff’d

The emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement applies when (1) police “‘have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property ’ and [(2)] ‘there [is] some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergenc y with the area or place to be searched.’” ().1 The exception allows officers to “enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to a n injured occup

See Ries v. State , d 620, 640 n.2 (Minn. 2018) (noting that a party forfeits a right by failing to make a timely assertion of that right).

30, 1985); -15 (Minn. App. 2016), aff’d, .

-15 (Minn. App. 2016), aff’d

Ries v. State , -32 (Minn. 2018).

But “that presumption may be overcome if a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.”

Ries v. State , , 639 (Minn. 2018).

But “because the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness, that presumption may be overcome if a recognized exception to the warrant requirement applies.” (quotation omitted).

“[T]he emergency- aid exception is a subset of the exigent -circumstances exception to the warrant requirement.” Ries v. State , .