BROADCASTS.com

b'The Washington County District Court issued a search warrant for the home office of appellant K.M., an attorney who handles, among other matters, criminal defense cases. Officers of the Burnsville Police Department executed the warrant, seizing a number of electronic devices that contain files covering K.M.\\u2019s entire law practice. K.M. filed a motion in Dakota County District Court under Minn. Stat. \\xa7 626.04(a) (2018), asking for the return of her property, arguing that a search of an attorney\\u2019s office and seizure of attorney-client communications is unconstitutional. Following an ex parte hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding the search and seizure proper and the seized property was held in good faith as potential evidence in an uncharged matter.\\n\\nK.M. filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking the return of the seized property, which the court of appeals denied in appeal No. A19-0414. The supreme court granted her petition for review, also granting the intervention motion and petition for review filed by K.M.\\u2019s clients, appellants John Does 1\\u20134. K.M. also filed an appeal of the district court\\u2019s decision under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103 in appeal No. A19-0714. On its own motion, the supreme court granted review of appeal No. A19-0714, and ordered the two appeals consolidated. Finally, the supreme court granted the State\\u2019s intervention motion to participate in the consolidated appeals.\\n\\nOn appeal to the supreme court, the issues presented are: (1) whether all of K.M.\\u2019s seized property, including the seized client files, should be returned and all copies destroyed; and (2) whether further orders are justified to protect attorney-client privileged information. (Dakota County)'