Cited by

(explaining that a search incident to arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement which allows an officer who has lawfully arrested a person to search “the arrestee’s person” and “the area within the arrestee’ s immediate control”).

(explaining that search incident to arrest is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement which allows an officer who had lawfully arrested a person to search the arrestee’s person and “the area within the arrestee’s immediate control”).

Unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies, “any evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed.”

Unless an exception applies, “any evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed.”

“[A]ny evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed.”

“[A]ny evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed.”

(citing Birchfield v. North Dakota, 579 U.S. 438, 459-60 (2016)).

Because “[a]n arrest is lawful if an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime,” our analysis on this issue is similar to the probable cause issue discussed above.

When the facts underlying a pretrial order on a motion to suppress are not in dispute, we review de novo “whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” - 48 (Minn. 2007); d 366, 369 (Minn. App. 2018).

“A search incident to a lawful arrest is a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.” (quotation omitted).

Under this exception, an arres ting officer may search both “( 1) the arrestee’s person, and (2) the area within the arre stee’s immediate control.”

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2483– 84 (2014)