Cited by

See State v. Fort , -43 (Minn. 2009) (holding that a warrant was supported by probable cause when the application stated that police had new equipment that could allow them to find evidence, namely traces of blood, that was not revealed by a previous search); State v. Zanter , -34 (Minn. 1995) (holding that a third wa rrant for the search of a home was not supported by probable cause to the extent that the application failed to provide new information suggesting that police would now find what w

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

" Harris , d at 788 (quoting State v. Zanter , , 633 (Minn. 1995) ); see also *803 Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 238, 103 S.Ct.

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).

D E C I S I O N As a preliminary matter, in an appeal by the state of a pretrial order, this 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.” see also Minn. R. Crim.

A substantial basis is 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).

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

We afford great deference to a judge’s determination of probable cause , examining the record only to “ensure that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Zanter , (quotation omitted).

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).

7 D E C I S I O N As a preliminary matter, in an appeal by the state of a pretria l order, this court will only reverse if the state can “ clearly and unequivocally show b oth that the trial court’s order will have a critical impact on the state’s ability to pro secute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” (quotation omitted); see Minn. R. Crim.

Under the “plain view” exception, the police may, without a warrant, seize an object they believe to be evidence of a crime, provided: “(1) [the] police are legitimately in the position from which they view the object; (2) they have a lawful right of access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.” (-45 (Minn. 1992).

A substantial basis in this context means a “fair proba bility,” given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N As a preliminary issue in an appeal of a pretrial order by the state, the state must demonstrate 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 cons tituted error.” State v. 5 Zanter, (quotation omitted).

A substantial basis in this contex t 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).

State v. Zanter , , 633 (Minn. 1995).

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).

D E C I S I O N When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “must ‘clearly an d 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.” State v. Scott , (quoting State v. Zanter , ).

D E C I S I O N When the state appeals a pretrial -suppression order , it “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.” State v. Zanter , (quoting State v. Kim , ) .

“To prevail, the state must clearly and un equivocally 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 , (quotation s omitted).

A substantial basis in this context means a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. Zanter , (quotation omitted).

D E C I S I O N I. When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “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.” (quoting State v. Zanter , ).

A substantial basis exists when there is a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found 4 in a particular place.” State v. Zanter , (quotation omitted).

A substantial basis in this context means a “fair probability,” given the totality of the circumstances, “that contra band or evidence of a crime w ill be found in a particular place.” State v. Zanter , (quotation omitted).

In order to satisfy the plain-view exception, it must be established that: “(1) [the] police are legitimately in the position from which they view the object; (2) they have a lawful right of access to the object; and (3) the object’s incriminating nature is immediately apparent.” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).

4 crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).

(discussing the requirement that a search warrant be supported by probable cause).

See, (clarifying that the Web-ber critical-impact requirement does not require the State to show that the lack of the suppressed evidence "completely destroys” its case; it is enough that the lack "significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution”); (holding that critical impact is a threshold issue that must be determined first, before deciding whether the suppression order was made in error); -23 (Minn.1998) (further emphasizing Zanter's change to the sequence in which error an

When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it “‘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.” (

(stating that “critical impact has been shown” when an error “significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution” (quotation omitted)).

“Critical impact has been shown when ‘the lack of the suppressed evidence significantly reduces the likelihood of a successful prosecution.’” ().

In determining whether probable cause exists, the issuing judge 5 considers the “totality of the circumstances” and makes a “practical, commonsense decision” based on “all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information.” (quotation omitted).

-40 (Minn.2001); see also Leon, 468 U.S. at 921 , 104 S.Ct.