Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash, 141 N.W.2d 3.

212 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-14 (Minn. 1965); (applying Rasmussen to pretrial suppression hearing).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(explaining that a district court deciding a suppression issue bases its decision on “the record of the evidence elicited at the time of [the pretrial] hearing”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Cody Logan Fohrenkam Minn. Ct. App. 2024
-14 (Minn. 1965) (explaining that state has obligation to show that circumstances under which evidence was obtained was consistent with constitutional requirements).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nancy Marie Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Nancy Marie Banks Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(adopting a pretrial proceeding, or Rasmussen hearing, to determine the admissibility of evidence allegedly obtained by infringement of a defendant’s constitutional rights).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
in which the supreme court stated: If the defendant, having been advised before trial that evidence obtained as the result of search and seizure will be offered against him .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-14 (Minn. 1965); d 51, 56 (Minn. App. 1996); rev. denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also State v. Cripps, 1 The district court relied on Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Rasmussen v. Tahash , (requiring suppression motion to be deci ded “[u]pon the record of th e evidence elicited” at the suppression hearing).
David William Reynolds, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Rasmussen v. Tahash , ); , 866 -67 (Minn. 2015) (stating that defendant may forfeit constitutional errors if defendant fails to object timely).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-14 (Minn. 1965) (establishing procedure for addressing certain 1 The parties refer to the hearing as a Rasmussen hearing, and that term appears throughout the record.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 15 -14 (Minn. 1965).
A19-1493 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-14 (Minn. 1965), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-14 (Minn. 1965) (establishing procedure to be followed when evidentiary i ssues arise in connection with searches and seizures, including a fact hearing on the admissibility of the evidence).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Rasmussen v. Tahash , -14 ( Minn. 1965).
State v. Rosenbush 931 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2019
State v. Rosenbush 931 N.W.2d 91 Minn. 2019
Rasmussen v. Tahash , 272 Minn. 539 , , 13 (1965) (explaining the procedure for challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of search and seizure); see also State v. Yarbrough , , 622-23 (Minn. 2014) (explaining that "a valid warrant must be supported by probable cause" and the standard courts use to review
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Edstrom 916 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2018
State v. Edstrom 916 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2018
Rasmussen v. Tahash , 272 Minn. 539 , , 13-14 (1965).
State v. Molnau 904 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2017
State v. Molnau 904 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2017
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539 , -14 (1965).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 534, 554, -14 (1965) (explaining that the state has the obligation to show that th e circumstances under which evidence was obtained was consistent with constitutional requirements).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasmussen v. Tahash , 272 Minn. 539, 554, (stating that a suppression ruling must be made “[u]pon the record of the evidence elicited” at the suppression hearing).
State of Minnesota v. David Israel Buenano Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. David Israel Buenano Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, the Minnesota Supreme Court outlined the procedures for notice and pretrial hearing to be followed when the state seeks to introduce evidence obtained through search and seizure or confessions at trial.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, the district court heard testimony from Officers Carigiet and Young and another officer investigating the vehicle tampering.
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Baron Montero Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, after which, the district court denied appellant’s suppression motion.
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alec Haefs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alec Haefs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 553–56, –14 (1965) (noting that when a “defendant elects to contest the admissibility of the evidence upon Federal constitutional grounds, a pretrial fact hearing on the admissibility of the evidence will be held” and that the court will rule on the admissibility of the evidence only “[u]pon the re