Cited by

See Ries, d at 632 (“Under the emergency-aid exception, officers may help an injured person or act to protect life or property if” they have “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property.” (quotation omitted)); (stating that, “[t]o determine whether the officer’s actions meet an objective standard of reasonableness [for purposes of the emergency-aid exception] the court should ask whether with t

We “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”

“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” ().

State v. Othoudt , -22 (Minn. 199 2).

In assessing reasonableness, “the court should ask whether with the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search, would a person of reasonable caution believe that the action taken was appropriate.”

“To determine whether the officer’s actions meet an objective standard of reasonableness the court should ask whether with the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search, would a person of reasonable caution believe that the action taken was appropriate.”

4 “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing— or not suppressing—the evidence.” ().

In reviewing a pretrial suppression order when the facts are not in dispute, as is the case here, we “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” d 218, 221 (Minn. 1992).

Suppression of Evidence “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” 98 (Minn. 1999) ().

We review the undisputed facts and “determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”

“To determine whether the officer’s actions meet an objective standard of reasonableness the court should ask whether with the facts available to the officer at the 7 moment of the seizure or search, would a person of reasonable caution believe that the action taken was appropriate.”

State v. Othoudt , -22 (Minn. 1992).

Warrantless searches are presumpt ively unreasonable, subject to a few well-established exceptions, and “[c]ourts are particularly reluctant to find exceptions to this rule in the context of a warrantless search or seizure in a home.”

State v. Othoudt , -22 (Minn. 1992).

“Courts are particularly reluctant to find exceptions to this rule in the context of a warrantless search or seizure in a home.”

W hether an individual gave voluntary consent for law enforcement to enter his residence is a question of fact “based on all relevant circumstances.” State v. Othoudt

d 218, 222 (Minn. 1992).

Appellate courts independently review facts that are not in dispute, and determine, “as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quoting State v. Othoudt , ).

In reviewing this objective standard, we consider if, “with the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search, [] a person of reasonable caution [would] believe that the action taken was appropriate.” (concluding emergency-aid exception does not apply when “officer has been specifically told that help was not needed, and can see that medica l aid is already being provided”).

Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 415-16 (1963)

See State v. Othoudt , (determining whether an officer’s actions are objectively reasonable requires considering “whether with the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or search, would a person of reasonable caution believe that the action taken was appropriat e”).

Warrantless s earches of a home “are per se unreasonable, subject to a few exceptions.”

Traditionally, we have applied the exigent-circumstances exception in situations where police have "reason to believe a crime ha[s] been committed," State v. Othoudt , , 223 (Minn. 1992), coupled with an "urgent need" to conduct a search or seizure, State v. Olson , , 97 (Minn. 1989).