Cited by

Malecha, d at 573, 579 (stating that we independently determine whether constitutional remedies, such as exclusion, apply under the Minnesota Constitution and declining to adopt the Evans good-faith exception); (declining to adopt the Leon good-faith exception); Lindquist, d at 877 (declining to decide whether the good-faith exception should apply in other circumstances).

When appealing a pretrial suppression order, the state “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted).

Because the impact of excluding a piece of evidence “depends in large part on the nature of the state’s evidence against the accused,” appellate courts consider “the state’s evidence as a whole.”

DECISION Critical impact To successfully challenge a pretrial suppression order, the state “must clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted).

(quotation omitted); State v. Schnorr , (applying critical-impact analysis to evidentiary ruling).

A substantial basis means a “fair probability” under the totality of the circumstances “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).

” State v. Zanter , (quotation omitted) .

Appellate courts analyzing the critical impact of a district court’s pretrial ruling will consider “the state’s evidence as a whole” to understand “the nature of the state’s evidence against the accused” and “the impact that suppressing these items will have on the state’s case.” -31 (Minn. 1995).

Whether the suppression of a particular piece of evidence will have a critical impact on a state’s case depends “in large part on the nature of the state’s evidence against the accused.”

“Whether suppression of a particular piece of evidence will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution depends in large part on the nature of the state’s evidence against the accused.”

(quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)).

To determine whether a warrant is supported by probable cause, this court reviews whether “the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

To determine whether a warrant is supported by probable cause, this court reviews whether “the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

On appeal, we review only whether “the issuing judge had a substantial 4 basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

(affirming the suppression of evidence 1 A “notice of judicial determination” is commonly used by court administration to immediately inform parties of a district court’s decision on a request or motion.

A substantial basis in this context means a “fair probability,” given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 268- 69 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[F]air probability is something more than a bare suspicion, b ut need not reach the fifty percent mark.”).

“Whether suppression 6 of a particular piece of evidence will significantly reduce the likelihood of a successful prosecution depends in large part on the nature of the state’s evidence against the accused.”

d 624, 630 (Minn. 1995) (quotations omitted); see also Minn. R. Crim.

7 We apply “a totality of the circumstances test for determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause.” (quotation omitted).

DECISION In a pretrial appeal by the state, the state must “clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” d 624, 630 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).

In a pretrial appeal by the state, an appellate court will reverse only if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both [1] that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and [2] that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted).

Because this appeal concerns a district court’s decision at the pretrial stage, we will reverse its decision only if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order [had] a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the [district court’s decision] constituted error.” (quotation omitted); d 620, 627 (Minn. 2017) (explaining that an appellate court views critical impact as a threshold issue and will not review a pretrial

In a pretrial appeal by the state, an appellate court will only reverse if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotations omitted).

see also State v. Harris , d 782, 787-88 (Minn. 1999); Papadakis, d at 355.

This showing “depends in large part on the nature of the state’s evidence against the accused,” and requires examination of “all of the state’s admissible evidence as a whole.” McLeod, prosecutor admitted that “it is a strategy move actually on my part to prep witnesses in a certain way or not prep witnesses.” 6 d at 785.

This court will reverse only if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecut e the defendant successfully a nd that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted).

th at the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully.” (quotation omitted)

In a state’s pr etrial appeal of the district court’s suppression order, an appellate court will reverse if the state can “c learly and unequivocally show both that the [district] court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” d 624, 630 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted).

DECISION In an appeal by the state of a pretrial order of the district court, an appellate court will only reverse if the state can “clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” State v. Zanter , (quotations omitted).

d 624, 633 (Minn. 1995).

6 defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” d 624, 630 (Minn. 1995) (quotation omitted) ; see Minn. R. Crim.

Whether probable cause exists depends on the “totality of the circumstances.” (quotation omitted).

In a state pretrial appeal, appellate courts will only reverse if the state can “ clearly and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” 6 State v. Zanter , (quotations omitted).

A substantial basis means a “fair probability,” given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Zanter , d 624, 633 (Minn. 1995).

Whether probable cause exists to issue a search warrant is determined by examining the “totality of the circumstances.” State v. Zanter , (quotation omitted).