Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sorenson, 134 N.W.2d 115.

85 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Joseph James Ossell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph James Ossell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We have held that ‘reasonable cause’ here and the ‘probable cause’ required by the Fourth Amendment are synonymous.” State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“We have held that ‘reasonable cause’ here and the ‘probable cause’ required by the Fourth Amendment are synonymous.” State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , (“[WJhether an officer in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested.”); see also State v. Driscoll, 427 N.
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
To establish probable cause, the police must show that they “reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.” (quoting State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , ); (“test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been commit
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” G.M., d at 695 (); see State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , *420 (officer has probable cause to arrest when “conditioned by his observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committe
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
In State v. Childs, we defined reasonable or probable cause 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.” d at 27 (quoting State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , -23 (1965)).
State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
(quoting State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , ).
State v. Nace 404 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nace 404 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
quoting State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State v. Johnson 403 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Johnson 403 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hatton 389 N.W.2d 229 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 200-01
State v. Stimpert 370 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stimpert 370 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
An officer has probable cause to arrest where, “in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his own observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, [the officer] reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested.” State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State v. Lohnes 344 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
State v. Lohnes 344 N.W.2d 605 Minn. 1984
In State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , we stated: “The question to be answered is whether an officer in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arreste
State v. Olsen 282 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1979
State v. Olsen 282 N.W.2d 528 Minn. 1979
See, State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 200
State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
State v. Merrill 274 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 1978
By looking at the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the trial court must determine— “* * * whether an officer in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his own observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested.” State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196
State v. Willis 269 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
State v. Willis 269 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 1978
This court held in State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , that probable cause for an arrest is a “ ‘reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.’ Garske v. United States (8 Cir.) 1 F.2d 620, 623 .” Under Minn.St.
State v. Childs 269 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1978
State v. Childs 269 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 1978
Probable cause is defined 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. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , -23 (1965).
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
State v. Titworth 255 N.W.2d 241 Minn. 1977
In State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186 , the court found that testimony was properly admitted in a prosecution for burglary, where the witnesses testified that the defendant greatly resembled the burglar who had been at their apartment about 2 months prior to the burglary charged.
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Williams 239 N.W.2d 222 Minn. 1976
State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 201
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Bowser 234 N.W.2d 890 Minn. 1975
State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186 , State v. Sutton, 272 Minn. 399
State v. Carey 207 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1973
State v. Carey 207 N.W.2d 529 Minn. 1973
What constitutes probable cause for arrest was defined in State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , , 122 (1965), 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.” As we have repeatedly stated this is a practical and nontechnical determination based upon the peculiar facts of each
State v. Harris 202 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1972
State v. Harris 202 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 1972
The phrase “reasonable and probable grounds” is synonymous with the phrases “reasonable cause” and “probable cause.” In State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , we stated: “It is clear that § 629.34(3) allows a police officer to arrest a suspect without an arrest warrant when a felony has occurred, and he has reasonable cause for believing that the suspect committed it.
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. Saucedo 200 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1972
State v. O’Donnell, 280 Minn. 213 , State v. Klotter, supra; State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186 , State v. DePauw, 246 Minn. 91
State v. Watts 198 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1972
State v. Watts 198 N.W.2d 283 Minn. 1972
State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , State v. Bruno, supra.
State v. Bruno 196 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1972
State v. Bruno 196 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 1972
The relevant criteria for establishing probable cause to arrest were outlined by this court in State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , : “Probable cause for an arrest has been defined to be a ‘reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.’ * * * “Each case, however, must be decided on its own facts and circ
State Ex Rel. Trimble v. Hedman 192 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1971