(a) A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized or the district court having jurisdiction of the substantive offense for the return of the property and to suppress the use, as evidence, of anything so obtained on the ground that:
(1) the property was illegally seized;
(2) the property was illegally seized without warrant;
(3) the warrant is insufficient on its face;
(4) the property seized is not that described in the warrant;
(5) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued;
(6) the warrant was illegally executed;
(7) the warrant was improvidently issued; or
(8) the warrant was executed or served in violation of section 626.14.
(b) The judge shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion. If the motion is granted the property shall be restored unless otherwise subject to lawful detention, and it shall not be admissible in evidence at any hearing or trial. The motion to suppress evidence may also be made in the district where the trial is to be had. The motion shall be made before trial or hearing unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the grounds for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the trial or hearing.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563 (Minn. 2013).
· cites it 6× “21 sets forth seven grounds on which a person "aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure" may move a court "for the return of the property and to suppress the use, as evidence, of anything so obtained.”
State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 8× “The magistrate had insufficient information, apart from the conclusory statement of the police officer as to the reliability of the informant, from which to determine independently that probable cause existed to search 1501 Upton Avenue North. The evidence seized in that search…”
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish, 868 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. 2015).
· cites it 4× “It also mocks the legislatively created remedy for illegal searches and seizures in Minn. Stat. § 626.21 (2014). See Lindquist, ___ N.”
State v. Johnson, 679 N.W.2d 169 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “The district court ruled that under Minn.Stat. § 626.21 (2002), certain evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop was inadmissible, including the blood alcohol level and positive tests for cocaine.”
State v. Reese, 446 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Warrant Reese claims the search warrant was wrongly issued because the informant did not show firsthand, personal knowledge of the allegations or conclusions of criminality.”
State v. Smith, 367 N.W.2d 497 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 2× “In arguing that the refusal to suppress was erroneous, defendant cites Minn.Stat. § 626.21 (1982), which provides that “[a] person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure,” may move the suppression of the use of the property on the ground that “* * * (1) the property was…”
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM, 852 N.W.2d 659 (Minn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “d search did not violate appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights; (2) appellant’s factual admissions in the federal guilty plea agreement in which he agreed to give up his rights to property obtained as a result of his drug trafficking offense provide an independent basis for…”
Bonynge v. City of Minneapolis, 430 N.W.2d 265 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 12× “Bonynge brought a motion under Minn.Stat. § 626.21 (1986) for the return *266 and suppression as evidence of the materials seized.”
In Re the Investigation of the Death of VanSlooten, 424 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “21 (1986) provides: A person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure may move the district court for the district in which the property was seized * * * for the return of the property and to suppress the use, as evidence, of anything so obtained.”
State v. Martin, 595 N.W.2d 214 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Martin also argues that the cocaine was inadmissible under Minn.Stat. § 626.21 (1998), which provides that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in any trial or hearing.”
— Minn. Stat. § 626.21(3) — 1 case
State v. Reese, 446 N.W.2d 173 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
“Warrant Reese claims the search warrant was wrongly issued because the informant did not show firsthand, personal knowledge of the allegations or conclusions of criminality.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.