Cited by

The temporary seizure of driver and passengers ordinarily continues, and remains reasonable, for the duration of the stop.”); d 791, 795-96 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding seizure of driver occurred when officer activated their squad car’s flashing lights to initiate a stop).

If a seizure is unsupported by reasonable, articulable suspicion, evidence gathered from it is inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” (quotation omitted).

“No single factor is dispositive, ” and “we must balance all of these factors.”

(discussing in the context of a seizure the inclination for drivers to pull over “until the officer makes it clear that either the driver is not the target of interest or the driver’s encounter with the police has come to a conclusion”); (disc

(“Evidence obtained through an illegal seizure is inadmissible to support a conviction.”).

-96 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding seizure occurred when an officer activated their squad car’s flashing lights to initiate a stop); (“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective bas

-96 (Minn. App. 2003) (holding seizure occurred when squad car’s flashing lights activated to initiate stop).

Harding argues that the SD card should have been suppressed under the exclusionary rules that “[e]vidence obtained through an illegal seizure is not admissible to support a conviction” and “evidence discovered by exploiting previous illegal conduct is inadmissible.” (quotation omitted).

(holding that a “driver confronted with a trailing squad car with flashing red lights 2 While respondent makes additional arguments beyond the scope of the stop, we will not consider those issues because we affirm the district co urt’s order dism

“To conduct a stop for limited investigatory purposes, an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity .” .

State v. Bergerson , , 797 (Minn.App.

“Under certain circumstances, an officer’s flashing red lights can be a significant factor in determining whether a seizure has occurred.”

-96 (Minn. App. 2003) (concluding that defendant was seized when a police car with red lights flashing followed immediately behind defendant’s car for some time).

Unlike a squad car’s red or blue emergency lights—the use of which frequently (but not always) communicates a seizure, (“A driver confronted with a trailing squad car with flashing red lights inevitably feels duty bound to submit to this show of authority by pulling over.”), (deeming erroneous a holding “that whenever an officer turns on the squad car’s

22, 1997) (concluding that appellant’s flight and “brushing” against officer while taking flight purged taint of unlawful seizure) (concluding that appellant’s mere flight did not purge taint of unlawful seizure).

(stating that suspect’s single purchase of items used to manufacture methamphetamine, without more, did not create a reasonable suspicion for a stop).

“Reasonable, articulable suspicion must be present at the moment a person is seized.”

nt,” which requires an examination of “the purpose and flagrancy of the misconduct, the presence of intervening circumstances, whether it is likely that the evidence would have been obtained in the absence of the illegality and the temporal proximity of the illegality and the evidence alleged to be the fruit of the illegality.” Knapp, d at 628 (quotation omitted); (holding that evidence discovered by officers following unconstitutional conduct was inadmissible because it was unlikely the officer