Cited by

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress eviden ce, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether th e district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris

“[W]e may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether th e district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”

“When reviewi ng pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” ().

Turning to that issue, this court “independently review[s] the facts and determine[s], as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing— the evidence.” ().

D E C I S I O N “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing the evidence.”

A seizure occurs when, “in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” State v. Harris¸ (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N I. Seizure and Search of Grocery Bag “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”

(quotation omitted) “The officer may justify his decision to seize a person based on the totality of the circumstances and may draw inferences and deductions that might elude an untrained person.” (quotation omitted).

Conversely, a person is seized when an officer “by physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, 4 whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”

When we interpret Article I, Section 10, we consider the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence to be “of persuasive, although not compelling, authority.” ().

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”

4 DECISION I. “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” ().

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence,” this court may “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred by suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

DECISION “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred by suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris, 3

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”

By contrast neither the arresting officer, nor the district court, nor even the majority today offers any theory as to how pulling barely onto a vacant lot’s entrance and then returning to the road implies that the driver may have been involved in “committing property crimes of nearby businesses.”

that the Fourth Amendment intervenes.” d 90, 102 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

“A person generally is not seized merely because a police officer approaches him in a public place or in a parked car and begins to ask questions.”

DECISION “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” ().

“The brief seizure of a person for investigatory purposes is not unreasonable if an officer has a particular and objective basis for suspecting the particular person [seized] of criminal 4 activity.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”