Cited by

“The [s]tate bears the burden of establishing that the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution.”

7 A search occurs when the government (1) “intrudes upon a person ’s reasonable expectation of privacy” or (2) “physically intrudes upon a constitutionally protected area.”

“The State bears the burden of establishing that the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution.”

the supreme court considered “whether a warrantless narcotics-dog sniff in the hallway outside [a suspect’s] apartment violated [his] right to be free from unreasonable searches under the United States or Minnesota Constitution.” Id.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011)

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459 (2011); 5

Appellant “bears the threshold burden of proving that [he] has a right protected by the constitution” while the state “bears the burden of establishing that the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution.”

(noting that a search occurs when the government “physically intrudes onto a constitutionally protected area” or “intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy”).

A search occurs for Fourth Amendment purposes (1) “when the government physically intrudes onto a constitutionally protected area” or (2) “when the government intrudes upon a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.” d 512, 517 (Minn. 2018).

“[P]olice need only reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity in order to conduct a dog sniff, provided they are lawfully present in the place where the sniff is conducted.”

8 At a suppression hearing, the state has the burden of “establishing that the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution,” and district courts are “tasked with determining whether evidence was obtained unconstitutionally,” Pauli, d at 49.

(concluding that at an omnibus hearing where a defendant sought suppression of evidentiary items, prosecution should have called witnesses rather than relying on the grand-jury-testimony transcript).

11 (holding that once a defendant demonstrates a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched, the State generally bears the burden of establishing whether the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution); see also United States v. Wilson, 13 F.4th 961, 971 (9th Ci

“When considering the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”

When a motion to suppress evidence is filed, the defendant “bears the threshold burden of proving that he or she has a right protected by the constitution.”

In a search of the apartment conducted pursuant to a search warrant, officers found “several firearms, ammunition, scales with methamphetamine residue, marijuana, and approximately 226 grams of methamphetamine.” (Edstrom II).

State v. Edstrom , d 512, 517 (Minn. 2018).

“The [s]tate bears the burden of establishing that the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution.” cert.

Appellant requests that we rule contrary to the supreme court’s —despite no factual distinctions from that case—to conclude the use of the narcotic- detection dog sniff outside his apartment in a common hallway constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s most recent decision regarding the constitutional validity of a dog sniff in a

“The State bears the burden of establishing that the 5 challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution.” pet.

“A person’s home is clearly a constitutionally protected area, ” and a search of a home occurs if “the government physically intrudes onto a constitutionally protected area.” (citing United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 406-07 n.3, 132 S. Ct. 945, 950 n.3 (2012))

When considering the denial of s uch a motion, we review “the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”

Because of the textual similarity, the Minnesota Supreme Court does not “construe [the ] state constitution as providing more protection for individual rights than does the f ederal constitution unless there is a principled basis to do so.” (quotation omitted).

“The State bears the burden of establishing that the challenged evidence was obtained in accordance with the constitution.” pet.

aff’d in part and rev’d in part