Cited by

-63 (Minn. 2004) (applying Article I, Section 10 to traffic stops because relevant federal precedent’s “apparent removal of any consideration of a balancing of individual interests with governmental interests troubles us”).

Appellate courts will consider the totality of the circumstances, recognizing that the “special training of police officers may lead them to arrive at inferences and deductions 8 that might well elude an untrained person.” State v. Askerooth , (quotations omitted).

IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 416 (1963); d 353, 370 (Minn. 2004).

Under the Minnesota Constitution, a seizure occurs when, given the totality of the circumstances, “a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.” (explaining that article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, under which a seizure occurs only “when the police use physical force or a person submits to a show of authority by police”).

392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)

To be constitutional, “each incremental intrusion during a traffic stop [must] be tied to and justified by one of the following: (1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry.”

1 We are “free to interpret the Minnesota Constitution as affording greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the United States Constitution.”

But “[a]n initially valid stop may become invalid if it becomes intolerable in its intensity or scope.” (quotation omitted).

When assessing this standard, appellate courts consider the totality of the circumstances, recognizing that the “special training of police officers may lead them to arrive at inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.” (quotations omitted).

An officer may expand a traffic stop if the incremental intrusion is tied to and justified by “(1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry.”

Under the Minnesota Constitution, a seizure occurs when, given the totality of the circumstances, “a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.” (explaining that article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution provides greater 3 protection than the Fourth Amendment, under which a seizure only occurs when the police use physical force or a person submits to a show of authority by the pol

“[E]ach incremental intrusion during a stop must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered the initiation of the stop permissible.” State v. Askerooth, 5 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19, 88 S. Ct. at 1878) (quotation marks omitted).

Wong Sun v. United States, 4 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 416 (1963)

(stating that Minnesota evaluates the reasonableness of seizures during traffic stops under the Terry 3 framework).

3 review the facts and determine whether, as a matter of law, the district court erred in suppressing or not suppressing the evidence.”