Cited by

Although appellate courts generally review probable-cause determinations de novo, with respect to warranted searches, we defer to the issuing judge’s determination “in doubtful or marginal cases.” Id.; (stating that appellate courts “should afford the district court’s [probable-cause] determination great deference”).

Although appellate courts generally review probable-cause determinations de novo with respect to warranted searches, we defer to the issuing judge’s decision “in doubtful or marginal cases.” Id.; (stating that, in search warrant cases, appellate courts “should afford the district court’s [probable-cause] determination great deference”).

When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence obtained in a search pursuant to a warrant, we “afford the district court’s [probable cause] determination great deference.”

“[W]hen reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’ s determination great deference.” 1

On review, the issuing judge is given “great deference,” and this court seeks to determine whether there was “a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”

In reviewing an issuing judge’s probable- cause determination, this court gives the issuing judge “ great deference” and seeks to 5 determine whether there was “a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”

“Appellate courts give great deference to the factual findings of the court issuing a warrant and will reverse ‘only if clearly erroneous.’” (); see also Souto, d at 747 (explaining that appellate courts’ “review of a district court’ s probable cause determination is limited, with great deference afforded to the issuing court”).

The reviewing court “should afford the district court’s determination great deference” and should consider only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Rochefort

In “reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’s determination great deference.” -05 (Minn. 2001) (reaffirming that appellate courts do not apply the de novo standard of review when reviewing search warrants, which is different from the standard of review for a warrantless search).

In reviewing an issuing judge’s probable- cause determination, this court gives the issuing judge “ great deference” and seeks to determine whether there was “a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”

A warrant “must be supported by probable cause.” State 13 v. Rochefort, (first citing U.S. Const. amend.

We review only the warrant application and supporting affidavits to determine if “the issuing judge ‘had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.’ ” –85 (Minn. 2016) (quoting State v. Rochefort, 9 ).

Validity of the Search Warrant An appellate court’s review of the validity of a search warrant “is limited, with great deference afforded to the issuing court.” State v. Souto , State v. Rochefort , (noting that, while a determination of whether probable cause existed to support a search warrant is reviewed de novo, this court gives “great deference” to the issuing magistrate’s determination of probable cause at the time of the warrant’s issue).

We “afford the district court ’s [probable-cause] determination great deference” and consider only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Rochefort

The reviewing court “afford[s] the district court’s [probable-cause] determination great deference” and considers only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”

This court “afford [s] the district court’s determination great deference.”

see also State v. Harris , d 782, 787-88 (Minn. 1999); Papadakis, d at 355.

The reviewing court “should afford the district court’s determination great deference” and should consider only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” see also Rugendorf v. United States , 376 U.S. 528, 533 (1964).

We review an appellant’s contention that a warrant rests on an insufficient factual ground by examining the warrant application to determine whether a substantial basis justifies the district court’s probable-cause determination, including whether it outlines facts that connect the site with the criminal activity

The reviewing court “should afford the district court’s determination great deference” and should consider only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” see also Rugendorf v. United States , 376 U.S. 528, 533 (1964).

State v. Harris , -88 (Minn. 1999) (quotations omitted); see also State v. Rochefort , -05 (Minn. 2001) 9 (noting our deferential standard is consistent with “the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant”) (quoting Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727, 733, 104 S. Ct. 2085, 2088 (1984)).

“An appellate court reviews a district court’s decision to issue a warrant only to consider whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concludi ng that probable cause existed.” State v. McClain , (quoting State v. Rochefort , ).

In reviewing the issuing judge’s probable-cause determination, this court gives the issuing judge “great deference” and seeks to determine whether there was “a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”

State v. Rochefort , 4-05 (Minn. 2001).

” State v. Rochefort , .

But when appella te courts review the decision to issue a search warrant, the “only consideration is whether the issuing judge ‘had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.’” ().

d 802, 804 (Minn. 2001).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has consistently held that, “when reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’s determination great de ference.” State v. Rochefort

State v. Rochefort , -05 (Minn. 2001).