Cited by

C/D-6 In addition, we have recognized that some forms of criminal conduct in response to unlawful police action are subject to suppression when such conduct is nonviolent and is also “a predictable and common response.” -12 (Minn. App. 1994) (suppressing evidence of defendant’s efforts to dispose of incriminating evidence that supported obstruction charge because the new criminal conduct “was foreseeable as a consequence of the illegal search, even if it was not the object of the search”).

A defendant can present an entrapment defense either “to a jury as a factual issue or to the district court as a matter of law.” (citation omitted).

at 296; -10 (Minn. App. 1994) (holding 4 that defense provided prosecutor with suffi cient notice through a letter stating that “all usual omnibus hearing issues” would be contested).

Id.; see also State v. Balduc , (d escribing the disposal of incriminating evidence as a “predictable and common response” to an illegal search).

d 607, 611 (Minn. App. 1994).

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence must specify the grounds for suppression “with as much particularity as is reasonable under the circumstances.” State v. Needham , s -10 (Minn. App. 1994) (concluding appellant did not forfeit challenge to particularity of search warrant description where appellant notified prosecutor “all usual omnibus hearing issues would be contested;” asked to have all police officers present; and questioned officer about contents of search warrant, a p

2 (stating that the failure to include any “defenses, objections, issues, and requests then available” in a pretrial motion constitutes waiver), -10 (Minn. App. 1994) (holding that a suppression issue first raised after an omnibus hearing is not waived if no prejudice is shown), and State v. Brunes , (holding that defendant’s claim regarding the propriety of an unannounced, nighttime search was waived because defe

That caselaw provides that “the affidavit and search warrant must be physically connected so that they constitute one document” and that “the search warrant must expressly refer to the affidavit and incorporate it by reference using suitable words of reference.” (quotation omitted); (stating that “an affidavit may be used to cure a deficient warrant if the affidavit and warrant are physically attached to one another and the warrant refers to the affidavit and incorporates it by reference” (quota

This court has similarly held that “an affidavit may be used to cure a deficient warrant if the affidavit and warrant are 9 physically attached to one another and the warrant refers to the affidavit and incorporates it by reference.” (quotation omitted).

Similarly, we reviewed a suppression ruling after concluding that the defendant did not validly waive his right to a jury trial.

See Berg, d at 90-91 (observing that suppression of obstruction evidence would effectively grant defendants a “license to resist, no matter how violently, with impunity”); (tossing marijuana plants during execution of search warrant is a predictable response); Combs, d at 569 (attempt to conceal a cup of beer followed by an assault on an officer was not predictable and warranted admission of the evidence).