Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pluth, 195 N.W. 789.

52 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
See Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 224, 227 (1960) (appending a 50-state survey indicating that illegally obtained evidence remained admissible in Minnesota courts, despite the exclusionary rule’s adoption in other states); –93 (Minn. 1923) (discussing state precedent on admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to unlawful search or seizure); State v. Strait, 102 N.W.
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
Under these writs and warrants, the *162 English government “assumed the power to search any person and any place they pleased, for the purpose of discovering violations of the laws.” State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , 195 N.W.
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Stevenson 637 N.W.2d 857 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Compare State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , 195 N.W.
State v. Bale 267 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1978
State v. Bale 267 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1978
The standards to be used in determining whether the offense was committed in the presence of an officer are set forth in State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , 195 N.W.
State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
In construing this requirement, we observed in State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , : “* * * It cannot be said that a criminal offense is committed in the presence of an officer, unless the acts constituting the offense become known to him at the time they are committed through his sense of sight or through other senses.” In State v. Miller, 290 Minn. 33 , d
State v. Dax 188 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1971
State v. Dax 188 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1971
1 The standards to be used in determining whether the offense was committed in the presence of an officer are set forth in State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Miller 185 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1971
State v. Miller 185 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 1971
In State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , , we said: «* * * it cannot be said that a criminal offense is committed in the presence of an officer, unless the acts constituting the offense become known to him at the time they are committed through his sense of sight or through other senses.
State v. Quinnell 151 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1967
State v. Quinnell 151 N.W.2d 598 Minn. 1967
See, also, State v. Duren, 266 Minn. 335 , 123 N. W. (2d) 624 ; Hilla v. Jensen, 149 Minn. 58 , ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Sorenson 134 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1965
State v. Sorenson 134 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1965
Harris v. United States, 331 U. S. 145 , 67 S. Ct. 1098 , 91 L. ed. 1399; Draper v. United States, supra; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Duren 123 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1963
State v. Duren 123 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1963
Thus, in Hilla v. Jensen, 149 Minn. 58, 62 , , it was stated: “* * * mere belief that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor does not justify even a peace officer in his arrest without a warrant, if in fact no misdemeanor has been committed or attempted.” In State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , , the governing principles were set forth as follows: “* * * It cannot be said that a criminal offense is committed in *346 the presence of an officer, unless the acts constituting the offe
State v. Harris 121 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1963
State v. Harris 121 N.W.2d 327 Minn. 1963
374, 32 S. W. (2d) 848 ; cf. State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 148 , .
State v. Rasmussen 118 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1962
State v. Rasmussen 118 N.W.2d 433 Minn. 1962
* * * Where the words of a statute prescribe as punishment both fine and imprisonment, the offense is a gross misdemeanor, regardless of the nomenclature used, and both forms of punishment must be inflicted.” See,, also, State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State Ex Rel. Farrington v. Rigg 107 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1961
State Ex Rel. Farrington v. Rigg 107 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 1961
Paul v. Stovall, 225 Minn. 309 , 30 N. W. (2d) 638 ; State v. Siporen, 215 Minn. 438 , 10 N. W. (2d) 353 ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
City of St. Paul v. Webb 97 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1959
City of St. Paul v. Webb 97 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1959
State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
Smith v. Hubbard 91 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1958
Smith v. Hubbard 91 N.W.2d 756 Minn. 1958
7 Nor do we agree that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that plaintiff was acting properly under the statute if he “had reasonable ground for believing that the defendant had violated the law in his presence.” The standards to be used in determining whether or not an offense has been committed or attempted in the presence of an officer were laid down in State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , , where we said: “* * * It cannot be said that a criminal offense is committed in the presence
State v. Miller 91 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1958
State v. Miller 91 N.W.2d 138 Minn. 1958
Olson v. Leindecker, 91 Minn. 277 , ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Masteller 45 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1950
State v. Masteller 45 N.W.2d 109 Minn. 1950
Calling an offense a misdemeanor does not make it so when the punishment prescribed makes it a gross misdemeanor or felony.” *199 In State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , , we said: “The crime charged against defendant is punishable only by a fine and imprisonment in the county jail and therefore is not a felony under our statute.” If that is true, it must follow that the opposite is likewise true and that if confinement may be in the state penitentiary the cr
City of St. Paul v. Stovall 30 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1948
City of St. Paul v. Stovall 30 N.W.2d 638 Minn. 1948
To the same effect, see State v. Ryan, 156 Minn. 186 , ; State v. Kaasa, 198 Minn. 181 , ; State v. Denner, 159 Minn. 189 , ; City of Mankato v. Grabowenski, 154 Minn. 265 , ; State v. Sauer, 217 Minn. 591 , 15 N. W. *313 (2d) 17; State v. Rogne, 115 Minn. 204 , ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Kelly 15 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1944
State v. Kelly 15 N.W.2d 554 Minn. 1944
There is in such case no occasion for construing the word “and” to mean “or,” for there is no ambiguity to be removed — “the punishment controls the definition.” State v. Hyman, 164 N. C. 411, 415 , 79 S. E. 284, 286 ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145, 151 , .
State v. Sauer 15 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1944
State v. Sauer 15 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1944
Defendant relies on State v. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205 , ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , ; and State v. Kaasa, 198 Minn. 381 , .
State v. Siporen 10 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1943
State v. Siporen 10 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 1943
State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 115 , .
State v. Kaasa 269 N.W. 365 Minn. 1936
State v. Kaasa 269 N.W. 365 Minn. 1936
State v. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205 , ; State v. Hoyle, 98 Minn. 254 , ; State v. Rogne, 115 Minn. 204 , ; State v. Hesse, 154 Minn. 89 , ; City of Mankato v. Grabowenski, 154 Minn. 265 , ; State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Groene 228 N.W. 615 Minn. 1930
State v. Groene 228 N.W. 615 Minn. 1930
State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .
State v. Tworuk 214 N.W. 778 Minn. 1927
State v. Tworuk 214 N.W. 778 Minn. 1927
State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , , and cases there cited.
State v. Denner 198 N.W. 430 Minn. 1924
State v. Denner 198 N.W. 430 Minn. 1924
State v. Pluth, 157 Minn. 145 , .