The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. To search and seize private property, law enforcement must have a warrant, or the circumstances must qualify as an exception to the warrant requirement. See State v. Licari, 659 N.W.2d 243, 250 (Minn. 2003). Evidence that is in plain view of an officer legitimately in a particular area is one exception that allows for seizure of...

A recent decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court, State of Minnesota v. Radke, A09-0834 (Minn. September 12, 2012), contains a good reminder: do not assume you know what the court will do and withdraw evidence before you have received a ruling. In Radke, an appeal from a first-degree murder conviction and the denial of postconviction relief, the appellant argued that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney...

Evidentiary rulings are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.  State v. Edwards, 485 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. 1992).  In order to warrant reversal, however, any error must have affected the substantial rights of the party claiming error. This is what is referred to as the harmless error rule.  The harmless error rule is embodied in Rule 103(a), which states: “[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes...