State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly

Summary

The court affirmed McNeilly’s theft-by-swindle conviction, holding that both the office warrant and the device warrant were sufficiently particular under the federal and state constitutions. The court did not decide whether the warrants were executed unreasonably with respect to privileged materials because any constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Exercising supervisory authority, the court adopted prospective procedures requiring independent screening and neutral review of materials seized from a law office when the attorney is the investigation’s target.