peace officers, and by Agent Radford’s blunt and categorical declaration of his determination to enter, already quoted. Thus confronted, Joyce Marie Michael had no real option. She had to yield. Protest would have been fruitless, physical resistance would have been absurd. It may be added briefly that the conclusion already announced supportive of the legality of the arrests and of the entry into the Michael residence also prompts this court to the view that such information and evidence as ensued, or was discovered or confirmed, upon such entry was incidental to a lawful entry and arrest, and was properly received upon the trial. The appellant contends and earnestly argues that the evidence upon her trial was insufficient to sustain her conviction, and the judgment entered upon it (<HOLDING>) Putting aside for later attention herein, the
holding that probation and suspension of sentence may not be revoked based solely on a violation or criminal offense that was committed before the offender was actually placed on probation holding that minnesota stay of imposition is sentence for purposes of federal sentencing guidelines even if no term of probation was imposed holding that probation is not a sentence holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation recognizing of course the suspension of the imposition of sentence and the grant of probation