Cited by

The Minnesota Supreme Court has concluded that, “if there is an objective legal basis for an arrest or search, the arrest or search is lawful even if the officer making the arrest or conducting the search based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.”

d at107; (stating that the prima facie showing was met by the prosecutor’s peremptory strike to remove the only Black juror); (finding a prima facie case was established when the prosecutor peremptorily struck the only two Native American jurors when the

-69 (Minn. 1991); -78 (Minn. 1992).

The prosecutor is not prohibited, however, “from arguing that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”

See Moore, d at 107; -78 (Minn. 1992); -69 (Minn. 1991).

See Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 575 n. 7 (1988)

“[I]f there is an objective legal basis for an arrest or search, the arrest or search is lawful even if the officer making the arrest or conducting the search based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.” (citing Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128 (1978)).

.”);2 (holding that age is a race -neutral explanation for a peremptory strike).

’” Ture v. S tate, (quoting State v. Everett

See State v. Everett , , 866 (Minn. 1991).

(noting that the “personal opinion rule” is designed to prevent a prosecutor “from becoming an unsworn witness and otherwise personally attaching himself or herself to the cause which he or she represents”).

See *712 Wilson , d at 382 ("[B]ecause the State accepted one black juror, we conclude that Wilson cannot demonstrate that he has met the required [prima-facie] standard."); State v. Everett , , 869 (Minn. 1991) (considering it "significant that the jury ultimately included a member of a minority").

This prohibition does not “prevent the prosecutor from arguing that particular witnesses were or were not credible.”

A prosecutor may not interject personal opi nion, become an unsworn witness, or “personally attach[] himself or herself to the cause which he or she represents.” State v. 5 Everett

The “personal opinion rule” is designed to prevent a prosecutor “from becoming an unsworn witness and otherwise personally attaching himself or herself to the cause which he o r she represents.” State v. Everett

Courts analyze Fourth Amendment challenges objectively, instead of evaluating “the actual motivations of individual officers .” Knights, 534 U.S. at 122, 122 S. Ct. at 593 (quotation omitted); ( explaining that if there is “an objective legal basis for an arrest or search, the arrest or search is lawful even 3 Although Rawlings discusses a search incident to arrest rather than a protective sweep, we apply the same logic here.

See Diggins, d at 357 (noting that the State accepted an African American juror before striking another potential juror); (considering it “significant that the jury ultimately included a member of a minority” race).

The defendant satisfies this burden by showing: “(1) that [one or more] member[s] of a racial minority has been peremptorily excluded and (2) that ‘circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.’ ” ().

(“[I]t is significant that the jury ultimately included a member of a minority.”).

(considering it “significant that the jury ultimately included a member of a minority” race).

A search or arrest is lawful even if the officer “based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive,” as long as there is “an objective legal basis for [the] arrest or search.”

based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive”); (stating that our supreme court follows the United States Supreme Court case Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 98 S. Ct. 1717 (1978), in determining that a search will be upheld if there is an objective legal basis for an arrest or search, even if the police officer had an improper motive).

See, d 864, 867 (Minn. 1991).

n. 2 (Minn.1991) (noting the distinction between a violation of a court rule and a violation of the federal constitution).

(holding that prosecutor’s closing- argument comments were not improper when he urged the jury to consider the witness credible based on his demeanor during his testimony).

“[I]f there is an objective legal basis for an arrest or search, the arrest or search is lawful even if the officer making the arrest or conducting the search based his or her action on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.”

(considering it “significant that the jury ultimately included a member of a minority” race).