In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...
Headline: Minnesota Attorney Suspended for Neglect and Misrepresentation
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
Minnesota attorney Jay A. Rosenberg suspended for 60 days for mishandling a probate case and misleading the court.
- Always document your communications with your attorney.
- If you suspect your attorney is not being truthful or diligent, contact the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
- Understand that attorneys have a duty to keep you informed about your case and to be honest with the court.
Case Summary
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ..., decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on March 12, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed a disciplinary action against attorney Jay A. Rosenberg for professional misconduct, specifically for failing to adequately represent his client in a complex probate matter and for misrepresenting his actions to the client and the court. The court found Rosenberg's conduct violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including duties of diligence, communication, and candor toward the tribunal. Ultimately, the court imposed a 60-day suspension from the practice of law. The court held: The court held that an attorney's failure to adequately represent a client in a complex probate matter, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate effectively, constitutes a violation of the duty of diligence under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.. The court held that an attorney's misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of their case and to the court about their actions constitute violations of the duty of candor toward the tribunal and honesty toward the client.. The court determined that the attorney's pattern of neglect and misrepresentation warranted a significant disciplinary sanction, considering the severity of the misconduct and the impact on the client and the judicial process.. The court found that the attorney's conduct violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including those related to diligence, communication, candor, and fairness to opposing party and counsel.. The court concluded that a 60-day suspension was an appropriate sanction, balancing the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession with the attorney's past disciplinary record and mitigating factors.. This case reinforces the stringent standards of diligence and candor expected of attorneys in Minnesota. It serves as a reminder that failure to competently represent clients and to be truthful with both clients and the court can lead to significant disciplinary sanctions, including suspension.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
A Minnesota lawyer, Jay A. Rosenberg, has been suspended from practicing law for 60 days. The court found he failed to properly handle a client's probate case, missed important deadlines, and misled both his client and the court about his actions. This suspension means he cannot represent clients or perform legal work during this period.
For Legal Practitioners
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed findings of professional misconduct against attorney Jay A. Rosenberg, imposing a 60-day suspension. Rosenberg's violations included lack of diligence and communication in a complex probate matter, and candor toward the tribunal through misrepresentations about his compliance with court orders. The court found the referee's initial recommendation of a public reprimand insufficient.
For Law Students
This case demonstrates the Minnesota Supreme Court's de novo review of attorney disciplinary actions. Attorney Jay A. Rosenberg received a 60-day suspension for violating Rules 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), and 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal) by mishandling a probate case and misleading the court. The court emphasized the seriousness of these ethical breaches.
Newsroom Summary
A Minnesota attorney, Jay A. Rosenberg, has been suspended for 60 days by the state's Supreme Court for professional misconduct. The court found Rosenberg failed to adequately represent a client in a probate case and misled the court about his progress, violating key ethical rules for lawyers.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that an attorney's failure to adequately represent a client in a complex probate matter, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate effectively, constitutes a violation of the duty of diligence under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.
- The court held that an attorney's misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of their case and to the court about their actions constitute violations of the duty of candor toward the tribunal and honesty toward the client.
- The court determined that the attorney's pattern of neglect and misrepresentation warranted a significant disciplinary sanction, considering the severity of the misconduct and the impact on the client and the judicial process.
- The court found that the attorney's conduct violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including those related to diligence, communication, candor, and fairness to opposing party and counsel.
- The court concluded that a 60-day suspension was an appropriate sanction, balancing the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession with the attorney's past disciplinary record and mitigating factors.
Key Takeaways
- Always document your communications with your attorney.
- If you suspect your attorney is not being truthful or diligent, contact the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
- Understand that attorneys have a duty to keep you informed about your case and to be honest with the court.
- Be aware that serious ethical violations can lead to an attorney's suspension from practice.
- If your attorney is suspended, you may need to find new legal representation.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
De novo review, as the case involves the interpretation and application of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and the court's inherent authority to discipline attorneys.
Procedural Posture
The case reached the Minnesota Supreme Court on a petition for disciplinary action against attorney Jay A. Rosenberg, filed by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, following findings of misconduct by a referee.
Burden of Proof
The Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility bears the burden of proving professional misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. The referee found this standard was met.
Legal Tests Applied
Duty of Diligence (Rule 1.3)
Elements: A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
The court found Rosenberg failed to act with reasonable diligence by not timely filing necessary documents in the complex probate matter, missing deadlines, and failing to communicate with the client about the status of the case and the court's orders.
Duty of Communication (Rule 1.4)
Elements: A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Rosenberg violated this rule by failing to inform his client about significant developments in the probate case, including court orders and missed deadlines, and by not responding to client inquiries.
Duty of Candor Toward the Tribunal (Rule 3.3)
Elements: A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.
The court found Rosenberg misrepresented his actions to the court by filing documents that falsely suggested he had complied with court orders and by failing to disclose his actual lack of progress and missed deadlines.
Statutory References
| Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 | Diligence — Applicable to Rosenberg's failure to timely file documents and respond to court orders in the probate matter. |
| Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 | Communication — Applicable to Rosenberg's failure to keep his client informed about the status of the probate case and court actions. |
| Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3 | Candor Toward the Tribunal — Applicable to Rosenberg's misrepresentations to the court regarding his compliance with orders and case progress. |
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"We conclude that respondent committed the misconduct alleged in the petition."
"We further conclude that the recommended public reprimand is insufficient discipline."
"We order that respondent Jay A. Rosenberg be suspended from the practice of law for 60 days."
Remedies
60-day suspension from the practice of law.
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- Always document your communications with your attorney.
- If you suspect your attorney is not being truthful or diligent, contact the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility.
- Understand that attorneys have a duty to keep you informed about your case and to be honest with the court.
- Be aware that serious ethical violations can lead to an attorney's suspension from practice.
- If your attorney is suspended, you may need to find new legal representation.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You hired an attorney for a complex probate case, but they haven't filed necessary documents, missed court deadlines, and don't return your calls.
Your Rights: You have the right to competent and diligent representation, regular communication about your case, and truthful information from your attorney.
What To Do: Document all communications and missed deadlines. Consider filing a complaint with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and consult with another attorney for a second opinion.
Scenario: Your attorney tells you they have complied with a court order, but you later learn from the court clerk that the order was not followed.
Your Rights: You have the right to expect your attorney to be truthful with you and the court. Attorneys have a duty of candor toward the tribunal.
What To Do: Gather evidence of the discrepancy. Report the attorney's conduct to the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and seek advice from another attorney.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal for a Minnesota attorney to miss deadlines and lie to the court?
No. Attorneys in Minnesota are bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which require diligence, communication, and candor toward the tribunal. Violating these rules can lead to disciplinary actions, including suspension.
Applies to attorneys licensed and practicing in Minnesota.
Practical Implications
For Clients of Jay A. Rosenberg
Clients who were represented by Jay A. Rosenberg during the period of his suspension (60 days) may need to find new counsel to continue their legal matters. They should verify the status of their cases and ensure continuity of representation.
For The general public in Minnesota
This ruling reinforces public trust in the legal profession by demonstrating that the Minnesota Supreme Court takes attorney misconduct seriously and imposes meaningful sanctions when ethical rules are violated.
For Attorneys in Minnesota
The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence, communication, and candor. Attorneys should review their practices to ensure compliance with Rules 1.3, 1.4, and 3.3 to avoid similar disciplinary actions.
Related Legal Concepts
Failure of an attorney to use the ordinary care and skill of a reasonably pruden... Attorney Discipline
The process by which a bar association or court investigates and sanctions attor... Duty of Candor
An attorney's ethical obligation to be truthful and not mislead the court or opp...
Frequently Asked Questions (37)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (9)
Q: What is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... about?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... is a case decided by Minnesota Supreme Court on March 12, 2025.
Q: What court decided In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... was decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is part of the MN state court system. This is a state supreme court.
Q: When was In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... decided?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... was decided on March 12, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...?
The citation for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is Jay A. Rosenberg being disciplined for?
Jay A. Rosenberg is being disciplined for professional misconduct, specifically failing to diligently represent a client in a probate matter, failing to communicate with his client, and misrepresenting his actions to the court.
Q: What is the penalty for Jay A. Rosenberg?
The Minnesota Supreme Court imposed a 60-day suspension from the practice of law.
Q: What is a 'probate matter'?
A probate matter is the legal process of administering a deceased person's estate, which involves identifying assets, paying debts, and distributing the remaining property to heirs or beneficiaries.
Q: How long is Jay A. Rosenberg suspended?
He is suspended for 60 days, meaning he cannot practice law during that period.
Q: What is the purpose of attorney discipline?
The purpose is to protect the public, maintain the integrity of the legal profession, and deter future misconduct by attorneys.
Legal Analysis (16)
Q: Is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... published?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What topics does In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... cover?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... covers the following legal topics: Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (Competence), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (Diligence), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (Communication), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation), Attorney Discipline, Professional Misconduct.
Q: What was the ruling in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. .... Key holdings: The court held that an attorney's failure to adequately represent a client in a complex probate matter, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate effectively, constitutes a violation of the duty of diligence under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.; The court held that an attorney's misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of their case and to the court about their actions constitute violations of the duty of candor toward the tribunal and honesty toward the client.; The court determined that the attorney's pattern of neglect and misrepresentation warranted a significant disciplinary sanction, considering the severity of the misconduct and the impact on the client and the judicial process.; The court found that the attorney's conduct violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including those related to diligence, communication, candor, and fairness to opposing party and counsel.; The court concluded that a 60-day suspension was an appropriate sanction, balancing the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession with the attorney's past disciplinary record and mitigating factors..
Q: Why is In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... important?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the stringent standards of diligence and candor expected of attorneys in Minnesota. It serves as a reminder that failure to competently represent clients and to be truthful with both clients and the court can lead to significant disciplinary sanctions, including suspension.
Q: What precedent does In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... set?
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that an attorney's failure to adequately represent a client in a complex probate matter, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate effectively, constitutes a violation of the duty of diligence under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. (2) The court held that an attorney's misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of their case and to the court about their actions constitute violations of the duty of candor toward the tribunal and honesty toward the client. (3) The court determined that the attorney's pattern of neglect and misrepresentation warranted a significant disciplinary sanction, considering the severity of the misconduct and the impact on the client and the judicial process. (4) The court found that the attorney's conduct violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including those related to diligence, communication, candor, and fairness to opposing party and counsel. (5) The court concluded that a 60-day suspension was an appropriate sanction, balancing the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession with the attorney's past disciplinary record and mitigating factors.
Q: What are the key holdings in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...?
1. The court held that an attorney's failure to adequately represent a client in a complex probate matter, including missing deadlines and failing to communicate effectively, constitutes a violation of the duty of diligence under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. 2. The court held that an attorney's misrepresentations to a client regarding the status of their case and to the court about their actions constitute violations of the duty of candor toward the tribunal and honesty toward the client. 3. The court determined that the attorney's pattern of neglect and misrepresentation warranted a significant disciplinary sanction, considering the severity of the misconduct and the impact on the client and the judicial process. 4. The court found that the attorney's conduct violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including those related to diligence, communication, candor, and fairness to opposing party and counsel. 5. The court concluded that a 60-day suspension was an appropriate sanction, balancing the need to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession with the attorney's past disciplinary record and mitigating factors.
Q: What cases are related to In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...?
Precedent cases cited or related to In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...: In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick J. McNulty, 877 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 2016); In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michael J. Finn, 850 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. 2014); In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David L. Grinolds, 835 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. 2013).
Q: What specific rules did attorney Rosenberg violate?
He violated Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (Diligence), 1.4 (Communication), and 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal).
Q: What is the 'duty of diligence' for an attorney?
The duty of diligence requires an attorney to act with reasonable promptness and persistence in representing a client, including meeting deadlines and taking necessary actions in a timely manner.
Q: What is the 'duty of candor toward the tribunal'?
This duty requires attorneys to be truthful with the court, not to make false statements of fact or law, and to correct any false statements previously made.
Q: What is the role of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility?
This office investigates allegations of attorney misconduct in Minnesota and prosecutes disciplinary actions before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Q: Can an attorney be suspended for misrepresenting facts to the court?
Yes, misrepresenting facts to the court is a serious ethical violation under the duty of candor (Rule 3.3) and can lead to significant disciplinary sanctions, including suspension.
Q: Where can I find the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct?
The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct are available on the Minnesota State Courts website or through legal research databases.
Q: What is the standard of proof in attorney discipline cases?
The standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence, meaning the allegations must be highly probable or reasonably certain.
Q: What is a 'public reprimand'?
A public reprimand is a formal disciplinary sanction issued by the court or bar association, which is a matter of public record, indicating the attorney committed misconduct but stopping short of suspension or disbarment.
Q: Does the court consider the attorney's intent when imposing discipline?
Yes, while intent is not always required for a violation, the attorney's state of mind (e.g., knowing or intentional misconduct) is often considered when determining the appropriate disciplinary sanction.
Practical Implications (5)
Q: How does In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... affect me?
This case reinforces the stringent standards of diligence and candor expected of attorneys in Minnesota. It serves as a reminder that failure to competently represent clients and to be truthful with both clients and the court can lead to significant disciplinary sanctions, including suspension. As a decision from a state supreme court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: How does an attorney's misconduct affect their clients?
Misconduct can harm clients by delaying their cases, causing them to miss opportunities, or leading to adverse legal outcomes. It can also erode client trust and require clients to find new counsel.
Q: What should I do if I believe my attorney is not handling my case properly?
Document your concerns and communications. You can file a complaint with the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility and consider consulting with another attorney for a second opinion.
Q: What happens after the suspension ends?
After the 60-day suspension, Jay A. Rosenberg may resume the practice of law, provided he complies with any conditions set by the court or the Director's office for reinstatement.
Q: What if I need my case file from Attorney Rosenberg during his suspension?
You should contact the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility for guidance on how to retrieve your file or ensure its transfer to new counsel.
Historical Context (1)
Q: Is this the first time Rosenberg has faced discipline?
The provided opinion does not specify if this is his first disciplinary action, but it details the current misconduct leading to a 60-day suspension.
Procedural Questions (3)
Q: What was the docket number in In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ...?
The docket number for In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... is A240670. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... be appealed?
Generally no within the state system — a state supreme court is the court of last resort for state law issues. However, if a federal constitutional question is involved, a party may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
Q: What does 'de novo review' mean in this context?
De novo review means the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case from the beginning, without giving deference to the referee's findings or conclusions, particularly on issues of law and the interpretation of ethical rules.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Patrick J. McNulty, 877 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 2016)
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Michael J. Finn, 850 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. 2014)
- In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against David L. Grinolds, 835 N.W.2d 771 (Minn. 2013)
Case Details
| Case Name | In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... |
| Citation | |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Date Filed | 2025-03-12 |
| Docket Number | A240670 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Impact Score | 25 / 100 |
| Significance | This case reinforces the stringent standards of diligence and candor expected of attorneys in Minnesota. It serves as a reminder that failure to competently represent clients and to be truthful with both clients and the court can lead to significant disciplinary sanctions, including suspension. |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, Attorney discipline, Duty of diligence, Duty of communication, Duty of candor toward the tribunal, Probate law, Professional misconduct |
| Jurisdiction | mn |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Jay A. Rosenberg, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0397875. ... was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct or from the Minnesota Supreme Court:
-
Andrew Vernard Glover v. State of Minnesota
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Herbert A. Igbanugo, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0191139. ...
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
In re Petition for Reinstatement of Registration No. 0191139
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Michael Tillman
Minnesota Supreme Court · 2026-04-01
-
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Madelyne Zielinski
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms DWI and Test Refusal Convictions Against ZielinskiMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
State of Minnesota v. Scot Perry Christian
Minnesota Supreme Court Affirms Scot Perry Christian's Murder Convictions, Upholding Exclusion of Third-Party Perpetrator EvidenceMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-25
-
Petition of Minnesota Housing Finance New Certificate of Title After Mortgage Foreclosure Sale Certificate No. 112938 – ...
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's Foreclosure Voided Due to Failure to Provide Statutory Notice to HomeownerMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18
-
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Richard Smeby
Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms Drug Convictions, Upholding Search Warrant Based on Probable CauseMinnesota Supreme Court · 2026-03-18