Cited by

In evaluating conflicting evidence, “the district court has the discretion to draw its own conclusions and make factual findings from its independent review of a video recording of a traffic stop.”

for the proposition that we may “make factual findings from [an] independent review” of the deputy’s dash-camera video.

To establish that an individual voluntarily consented to a search, the onus is on the state to prove that the consent was given freely and was “manifestly voluntary.” d 90, 102 (Minn. 1999) (holding that the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that consent was given freely and voluntarily).

To establish that an individual voluntarily consented to a search, the onus is on the state to prove that the consent was given freely and was “manifestly voluntary.” See State v. Shellito , (holding that state must show by a preponderance of the ev idence that consent was given freely and voluntarily).

(holding “the district court has the discretion to draw its own conclusions and make factual findings from its independent review of a video recording of a traffic stop,” and, in cases of conflicting evidence, “the district court must make findings of fact”); see also Minn. R. Civ.

In evaluating conflicting evidence, “the district court has the discretion to draw its own conclusions and make factual findings from its independent review of a video recording of a traffic stop.”

(stating an officer’s observation of a sing le traffic violation provided reasonable grounds to support a stop).

at 353; (upholding an initial stop, in part, because the officer “receiv[ed] slightly different stories” from the two vehicle occupants) ; see also United States v. Sanchez, 417 F.3d 971, 975 (8th Cir. 2005) (“[C]onflicting stories may provide justification to expand the scope of the stop and detain

Even when findings of fact are based solely on documentary evidence, they “shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”1 (quoting Minn. R. Civ.

See Rohde, d at 256-66 (examining whether the facts demonstrated that the officer “plan[ned] to arrest Rohde or take her to jail” before choosing to impound the vehicle); 186 (Minn. App. 1999) (explaining the district court may make factual findings from its “independent review of a video recording of a traffic stop,” which are reviewed for clear error).

(stating that we defer to the district court’s factual findings based on squad car video evidence the same as findings based on oral or documentary evidence).

luding the suspect’s precise words, the volume at which the words were spoken, the volume relative to the suspect’s other words, the positions of participants and the recorder in the room, and the actions and impressions of the suspect and officer, among others—[that] can be discerned from the recording, if one is available, and from the testimony of the people involved”); (“We hold that the district court has the discretion to draw its own conclusions and make factual findings from its independ

(findings of fact reviewed under clearly erroneous standard).

(citations omitted) (stating that the consent of a defendant who is being illegally detained may be “tainted by the illegality” and therefore invalid).