Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 121 N.W.2d 327.

129 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mya Oo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mya Oo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See Askerooth, d at 369 (stating that “there is no basis to believe that lack of identification, without more,” made it reasonable to expand a traffic stop); -29, 137 (Minn. 2002) (determining that an officer cannot expand the scope of a routine traffic stop by conducting a drug dog sniff without reasonable suspicion); (“Police officers may not ordinarily make searches upon apprehending motorists for simple traffic violations or upon the slightest hint of illegality.”).
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
In Re the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Strecker 777 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Strecker 777 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, (defining probable cause as “circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty”); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 263-64 , (“The constitutional mandate requiring ‘probable cause’ and the statutory standard of ‘reasonable cause’ are synonymous.”); (“probable cause and reasonable cause are synonymous”); see also Black’s Law Dictionary, 1321, 1380 (9th e
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
Shane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 587 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1998
Shane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 587 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1998
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , (quoting Garske v. United States, 1 F.2d 620, 623 (8th Cir.1924)); Eggersgluss v. Comm'r of Pub.
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
See, (interpreting the shoplifting arrest statute); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 263-64 , (holding that the constitutional standard of probable cause and the statutory standard of reasonable cause are synonymous).
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 268 , cert.
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
3 We have said that “[p]olice officers may not ordinarily make searches upon apprehending motorists for simple traffic violations or upon the slightest hint of illegality.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 268 , cert.
Franko v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Franko v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Elwood v. County of Rice 423 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1988
Elwood v. County of Rice 423 N.W.2d 671 Minn. 1988
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 265 , (emphasis added in Harris), see also Lundeen v. Renteria, 302 Minn. 142, 148
Andersen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 410 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Andersen v. Commissioner of Public Safety 410 N.W.2d 17 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Probable cause “is not to be evaluated from a remote vantage point of a library, but rather from the viewpoint of a prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264, 265 , , cert.
Dutcher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Dutcher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , -31 , cert.
Overline v. State, Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Overline v. State, Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 23 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Vangstad v. Commissioner of Public Safety 404 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Vangstad v. Commissioner of Public Safety 404 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , -31 , cert.
Sens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 399 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pesterfield v. Commissioner of Public Safety 399 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Pesterfield v. Commissioner of Public Safety 399 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Sens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 399 N.W.2d 602 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Probable cause must be evaluated from the point of view of a “prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest.” (quoting from State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Perkins v. County of St. Louis 397 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Perkins v. County of St. Louis 397 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The supreme court has defined probable cause to arrest as “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , cert.
Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety 386 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety 386 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260
State v. Maletich 384 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Maletich 384 N.W.2d 586 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264
Roach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The trial court must make an evaluation from the point of view of a “prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
State v. Eggler 372 N.W.2d 12 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Probable cause is evaluated from the point of view of a “prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Probable cause is evaluated from the point of view of a “prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of the arrest.” State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Probable cause for an arrest has been defined as “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious [person] in believing the accused to be guilty.” *363 Garske v. United States, 1 F.2d 620, 623 (8th Cir.1924), quoted in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264 , , cert.
Vertina v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Vertina v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Probable cause should be evaluated “from the viewpoint of a prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest.” Jackson v. United States, 302 F.2d 194, 196 (D.C.Cir.1962), quoted with approval in State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 264
Nohre v. Commissioner of Public Safety 355 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nohre v. Commissioner of Public Safety 355 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , the court noted that in a situation involving probable cause to invoke the implied consent law, probable cause should be evaluated “from the viewpoint of a prudent and cautious police officer on the scene at the time of arrest.” Id., 265 Minn, at 264, d at 331 , quoting Jackson v. Unit

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by