automobile exception in Minnesota

2016For example, the automobile exception permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant if “probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband.” State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007).

2016Odette’s argument fails to recognize that the automobile exception is an independent exception to the warrant requirement that permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant “[w]hen probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband,” Flowers, 734 N.W.2d at 248 , which is not limited by the Supreme Court’s holding in McNeely.

2024Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “the police may search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” State v. Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

2016In an opinion filed on February 10, 2016, the supreme court reversed, concluding that the district court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion because “the search of [appellant’s] car was lawful under the automobile exception.” State v. Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768, 772-73 (Minn. 2016).

2024The underlying rationale of the automobile exception is that, if there is probable cause to believe that contraband may be found in a vehicle, it frequently is “not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153 (1925).

2015State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 135 (Minn. 1999) (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 , 45 S. Ct. 280, 285 (1925)).

2008Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “[w]hen probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without a warrant.” State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn.2007) (citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 , 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)).

2008Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “[w]hen probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without a warrant.” State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn.2007) (citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 , 119 S.Ct. 2013 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999)).

2007See State v. Search, 472 N.W.2d 850, 852 (Minn.1991) ("Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police may search a vehicle without a warrant * * * if they have probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.").

2007See State v. Search, 472 N.W.2d 850, 852 (Minn.1991) (“Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, police may search a vehicle without a warrant * * * if they have probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.”).

2015Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 , 45 S. Ct. 280, 283-84 (1925); State v. Pederson-Maxwell, 619 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Minn. App. 2000).

2002See State v. Pederson Maxwell, 619 N.W.2d 777, 780 (Minn.App.2000) (stating that searches of motor vehicles when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband do not violate the warrant requirement); Hatton, 389 N.W.2d at 232 (stating that searches conducted with consent and without a warrant do not violate the warrant requirement).

2011Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 , 119 S.Ct. 2013, 2014 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999); State v. Bigelow, 451 N.W.2d 311, 311 (Minn.1990) (holding that if police have probable cause to search a vehicle for evidence of a crime, they may “search every part of the vehicle and its contents which may conceal the object of the search”).

2000Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 , 119 S.Ct. 2013, 2014 , 144 L.Ed.2d 442 (1999) (a finding of probable cause “alone satisfies the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement”); State v. Bigelow, 451 N.W.2d 311, 311 (Minn.1990) (holding that, if the police have probable cause to search a motor *781 vehicle for drugs or other contraband, they may search every part of the vehicle and its contents which may conceal the object of the search); State v. Nace, 404 N.W.2d 357, 361 (Minn.App.1987), review denied (Minn. Jun 25, 1987) (under the automobile exception to the warr

2024The actual binding precedent established by Pierce based on the express reasoning of the Pierce court rather than on its dicta is this: police conducting a legal vehicle stop had “probable cause, allowing [them] to search the car for evidence of an ‘open bottle’ violation under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement” when police (1) “recognized the [driver] and knew him to be on probation,” (2) “knew also that [he] was not supposed to be drinking or to be in possession of beer,” (3) “noticed the smell of beer or alcohol coming from the car,” and (4) “noticed an open case of beer i

1985State v. Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d 105, 109 (Minn.1983); State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 1 Having seen unusual, suspicious movements of appellant and Mangen, and having already found a razor blade in Man-gen’s jacket pocket, as well as pills and white powder, Meyers could lawfully perform a pat-down search of appellant for weapons.

2016See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (noting that officer properly conducted warrantless search of vehicle for marijuana where officer smelled marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment before the search); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405 , 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (1973) (upholding warrantless search of vehicle after officer smelled odor of burnt marijuana and holding Fourth Amendment “does not require law- enforcement officers . . . to close their eyes lest they see, in plain sight, evidence of criminal conduct, . . . neither does it require them to avoid using thei

2015State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007); see also State v. Ortega, 749 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. App. 2008) (clarifying that probable cause is a test of reasonableness that applies regardless of the amount of marijuana that the vehicle’s occupants actually possesses), aff’d, 770 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 2009).

2008The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception is “ ‘defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe [the object] may be found.’ ” California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579-80 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982)); see also Ross, 456 U.S. at 825 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 (stating that the scope of a warrantless automobile search extends as far as “a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant”).

2008The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception is “ ‘defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe [the object] may be found.’ ” California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579-80 , 111 S.Ct. 1982 , 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982)); see also Ross, 456 U.S. at 825 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 (stating that the scope of a warrantless automobile search extends as far as “a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant”).

2024Probable cause requires more than “mere suspicion but less than the evidence necessary for conviction.” State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. 2011) (citing State v. Horner, 617 N.W.2d 789, 796 (Minn. 2000)).

2024Probable cause requires more than “mere suspicion but less than the evidence necessary for conviction.” State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867, 871 (Minn. 2011) (citing State v. Horner, 617 N.W.2d 789, 796 (Minn. 2000)).

2024A warrantless search is “presumptively unreasonable unless one of a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions applies.” State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243, 250 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted). 5 The district court determined that the search of Johnson’s vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.

2024We begin by noting that, as a general matter, the state may obtain appellate review of a pre-trial order only if the order, if not reversed, would have a “critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” State v. Lugo, 887 N.W.2d 476, 481 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted); see also Minn. R.

2016See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (noting that officer properly conducted warrantless search of vehicle for marijuana where officer smelled marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment before the search); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405 , 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (1973) (upholding warrantless search of vehicle after officer smelled odor of burnt marijuana and holding Fourth Amendment “does not require law- enforcement officers . . . to close their eyes lest they see, in plain sight, evidence of criminal conduct, . . . neither does it require them to avoid using thei

2016See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (noting that officer properly conducted warrantless search of vehicle for marijuana where officer smelled marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment before the search); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405 , 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (1973) (upholding warrantless search of vehicle after officer smelled odor of burnt marijuana and holding Fourth Amendment “does not require law- enforcement officers . . . to close their eyes lest they see, in plain sight, evidence of criminal conduct, . . . neither does it require them to avoid using thei

2016See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 47 n. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) (”[T]he validity of an arrest is not necessarily determinative of the right to search a car if there is probable cause to make the search.”).

2016See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 47 n. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) (”[T]he validity of an arrest is not necessarily determinative of the right to search a car if there is probable cause to make the search.”).

2016See State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978) (noting that officer properly conducted warrantless search of vehicle for marijuana where officer smelled marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment before the search); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405 , 205 N.W.2d 509, 511 (1973) (upholding warrantless search of vehicle after officer smelled odor of burnt marijuana and holding Fourth Amendment “does not require law- enforcement officers . . . to close their eyes lest they see, in plain sight, evidence of criminal conduct, . . . neither does it require them to avoid using thei

2016Probable cause exists when, looking at the totality of the circumstances, “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983). 6 Appellant argues the automobile exception does not apply because the police officer lacked probable cause to believe there were drugs in the vehicle.

2016Probable cause exists when, looking at the totality of the circumstances, “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983). 6 Appellant argues the automobile exception does not apply because the police officer lacked probable cause to believe there were drugs in the vehicle.

2015State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621, 627 (Minn. 2001). 4 The automobile exception allows the warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime.

2015State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128, 135 (Minn. 1999) (quoting Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 154 , 45 S. Ct. 280, 285 (1925)).

2015See State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Minn. 1997) (requiring that inventory searches must be performed in accordance with standard procedures and at least in part to obtain an inventory). 3 DECISION When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it first “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. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412, 416 (Minn. 1998) (quotations omitted).

2015State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007); see also State v. Ortega, 749 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. App. 2008) (clarifying that probable cause is a test of reasonableness that applies regardless of the amount of marijuana that the vehicle’s occupants actually possesses), aff’d, 770 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 2009).

2015See State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Minn. 1997) (requiring that inventory searches must be performed in accordance with standard procedures and at least in part to obtain an inventory). 3 DECISION When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, it first “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. Scott, 584 N.W.2d 412, 416 (Minn. 1998) (quotations omitted).

2014That exception is based in part on “a person’s reduced expectation of privacy in a vehicle.” State v. Bauman, 586 N.W.2d 416, 422 (Minn. App. 1998), review denied (Minn. Jan. 27, 1999).

2014State v. Milton, 821 N.W.2d 789, 798 (Minn. 2012). 4 One exception to the warrant requirement is the automobile exception.