Cited by

First, a n “identified citizen” reported that Moore’s sedan was “all over the road.” 9 Second, the Little Falls officer corroborated the reported driving conduct and observed Moore’s sedan “making jerky movements within its traffic lane.” (explaining that “the entire knowledge of the police force is pooled and imputed to the arresting officer” (quotation omitted)).

See State v. Riley , (excluding a fact not known to officers at the time of the arrest from the court’s analysis of probable cause).

And Officer 1 testified that the officers who later searched appellant’s vehicle had “see[n] the original stop.” (“When more than one officer is involved in an investigation, Minnesota uses the ‘collective knowledge’ approach to determine whether probable cause existed.”).

State v. Riley , ( quotation omitted ).

When more than one police officer was involved in an investigation, Minnesota courts apply the “collective knowledge” approach to dete rmine whether probable cause existed, under which “the entire knowledge of the police forc e is pooled and imputed to the arresting officer.” (quotation omitted).

“To establish probable cause, the police must show that they reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.”

“To establish probable cause, the police must show that they reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.” (quotation omitted).

“Probable cause for an arrest exists when police ‘reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.’” Jenkins, d at 221 ().

See, (using this colle ctive-knowledge approach when reviewing a warrantless arrest); (same).

State v. Riley , (emphasis omitted) (citation a nd quotation omitted) .

7 To establish probable cause to arrest, “the police must show that they reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.” (quotation omitted).

ef that Onyelobi constructively possessed the suspected narcotics that police saw in her hotel room, either as sole 5 In instances in which more than one police officer is involved in an investigation, the “entire knowledge of the police force is pooled and imputed to the arresting officer for the purpose of determining if sufficient probable cause existed for an arrest.” () (alterations omitted).

Significantly, the criminal cases cited by the dissent involving voluntary confessions and voluntary guilty pleas' do not employ the rules of statutory interpretation, See, (analyzing the voluntariness of a confession as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution); -19 (Minn.1994) (discussing case law on voluntary guilty pleas).

“A defendant is deprived of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment when the defendant’s conviction is founded on an involuntary statement.”

n and probable cause as they relate to searches and seizures ‘should be reviewed de novo on appeal.’” (-83 (Minn. 1998)) “The question of the legality of the arrest turns not on the reasonableness or practicality of obtaining a warrant, but on the reasonableness of the arrest.”

6 the arrest turns not on the reasonableness or practicality of obtaining a warrant, but on the reasonableness of the arrest.”

(applying the collective knowledge approach to the probable cause determination).

Thus, “[w]hen more than one officer is involved in an investigation, Minnesota uses the ‘collective knowledge’ approach to 4 determine whether probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).

“The question of the legality of the arrest turns not on the reasonableness or practicality of 5 obtaining a warrant, but on the reasonableness of the arrest.” d 518, 523 (Minn. 1997).

(applying the "collective knowledge" approach to determine the legality of an arrest).

ientific certainty,” implicitly holding that the phrase does not imply “to the exclusion of all others.” (allowing a properly qualified expert to express an opinion “to a reasonable scientific certainty” that the appellant is the source of the DNA while not allowing the expert to say that a particular profile is unique); (concluding that it was not error for the district court to permit a ballistics expert to testify to a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” that the handgun was the sourc

State v. Riley (Riley I)