Cited by

23 The bar for relevance is not high as “Rule 401 adopts a minimal relevancy approach.” (quotation omitted).

The bar for relevancy is not high as “Rule 401 adopts a minimal relevancy approach.” (quotation omitted); (“Generally, evidence is relevant if in some degree it advances the inquiry and thus has probative value.” (quotation omitted)).

permits the police to search a vehicle provided they (1) follow standard procedures in carrying out the search and (2) perform the search, at least in part, for the purpose of obtaining an inventory and not for the sole purpose of investigation.”

“The state bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.”

(stating that claims are forfeited when a party “fails to provide any authority or argument to support [the] claim”).

“The state bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.”

“The state bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.”

See State v. Ture , (noting that “[t]he state bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement”).

(holding that when a party “fails to provide any authority or argument to support [a] claim,” the claim is forfeited).

DECISION “Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions prohibit the state from conducting unreasonable searches or seizures.” (citing U.S. Const. amend.

See State v. Ture , (deeming a claim waived where the appellant failed to provide any authority or argument to support it).

(stating that the warrantless search of a vehicle, absent an exception, is unconstitutional) .

In determining whether the discovery of evidence was an officer’s sole motivation in conducting an inventory search, courts analyze whether “ the search would not have occurred but for the investigatory motive.” State v. Ture

(concluding that claims made in a pro se brief without any authority or argument to support them are waived).

“The state bears the burden of establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.”

“The state bears the burden of estab lishing an exception to the warrant requirement.”

2 –30 (Minn. 2001), in which a police department was allowed to retain evidence for 22 years, and argues that the district court erred in considering that ten years had passed since the drive-by shooting.

" State v. Ture , , 631 (Minn. 2001) (quoting State v. Horning , , 298 (Minn. 1995) ).

(holding state’s retention of property for 22 years proper when criminal investigation ongoing); (holding seized property must be returned when charges against appellant were dropped and state no longer had use for property).

See State v. Krosch , (stating that because appellant’s pro se supplemental brief contained “no argument or citation to legal authority in support of the alleg ations” those arguments are waived); (noting that appellant failed to provide any authority or argument to support several of his cla ims and therefore those claims were waived); (“Where a defendant asserts error, but fa ils to address the error in hi s appellate brief, the issu

Generally, warrantless searches are “per se unreasonable” and unconstitutional “unless one of the well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies.” State v. Ture , (quotations omitted).

State v. Ture , , 627 (Minn. 2001) (quotations omitted).

See State v. Ture , see also Rohde , d at 264.

(noting a court may take into consideration surrounding circumstances when determining what inferences may be drawn from a piece of evidence and whether that evidence is therefore admissible).

Louden v. Louden, 221 Minn. 338, 339, (“An assignment of error based on mere assertion and not supported by any argument or authorities in appellant’s brief is waived and will not be considered on appeal unless prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection.”).

IV; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 10