Cited by

When determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, “the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.”

Search warrants that lack particularity are not “suppressed,” instead they are deemed “invalid.” –73 (Minn. 1990) (concluding that the search warrant was “invalid” because it lacked particularity); –13 (Minn. 2003) (concluding that the language of the warrant was sufficiently particular and therefore rejecting appellant’s claim that the search warrant was “invalid”).

Furthermore, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based 14 on a failure to call a particular witness—as mother argues here—“are of the type we have repeatedly declined to recognize as amounting to ineffective assistance of counsel.”

When determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, “the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.”

“[W]hen determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.” 15

(quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480 (1976))

“[W]hen determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.”

“The standard to be used in this determination is one of practical accuracy rather than technical nicety.” (quotation omitted).

See Doppler, d at 633; (rejecting ineffective-assistance claim based in part on manner of cross- examination); (stating that manner of cross-examination is tactical decision and that “failure to conduct cross-examination in a certain manner” does not demonstrate inef

-18 (Minn. 2003) (rejecting claim that trial counsel was ineffective because of a conflict of interest where defendant provided no evidence to show that conflict of interest existed).

This determination is one of “practical accuracy” rather than “technical nicety.” (quotation omitted).

-18 (Minn. 2003) (rejecting an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because it was not supported by evidence).

-17 (Minn. 2003) (rejecting ineffective- assistance claim based in part on the manner of cross-examination); State v. Irwin , (noting that the manner of cross-examination is a tactical decision and that “failure to conduct cross-examination in a certain manner” does not dem

d 703, 717-18 (Minn. 2003).

See, e.g. , State v. Miller , , 717-18 (Minn. 2003) (rejecting claim that trial counsel was ineffective because of a conflict of interest where defendant provided no evidence to show that conflict of interest existed).

See, (rejecting claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Schwartz hearing where defendant failed to provide eviden ce to support assertion that juror was unable to be impartial); State v. Miller , (rejecting claim that trial counsel was ineffective because of a conflict of interest where defendant provided no evidence to support assertion that conflict of interest existed).

The Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “when determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.” .

“[A] police affiant’s training and experience can be a proper factor to consider in making a probable-cause determination.” ().

“The standard to be used in this determination is one of practical accuracy rather than technical nicety.” State v. Miller , (quotation omitted).

to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” State v. Miller , (quotation omitted).

“An appellant arguing that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Miller , (quotation omitted).

“[W]hen determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the 7 crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.”

6 “There is a strong presumption that counsel’s performance fell within a wide range of reasonable assistance.” (quotation omitted).

736 (Minn. 2010); d 703, 717 (Minn. 2003) (rejecting an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based, in part, on ineffective cross-examination).

And “when determining whether a clause in a search warrant is sufficiently particular, the circumstances of the case must be considered, as well as the nature of the crime under investigation and whether a more precise description is possible under the circumstances.”

an issuing judge may draw reasonable inferences from a search warrant application based upon common sense and the information provided regarding the nature and circumstances of a crime.