Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Fish, 159 N.W.2d 786.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We also reject the state’s attempt to justify the impoundment as a Terry investigatory stop, for “the right of police officers to stop a suspicious person does not extend to a right of search in the absence of probable cause.” State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 167
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
119 n. 9 (Minn.1999) (citing State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169 , ).
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
See State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169 , (holding that probable cause to arrest requires something more than a mere suspicion, but something less than the evidence required to sustain a conviction).
State v. Ailport 413 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Ailport 413 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169
State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
It is “something more than mere suspicion and something less than evidence which would sustain a conviction.” State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169
State v. Berg 383 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Berg 383 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169
State v. Skoog 351 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Skoog 351 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
2317, 2328 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); see also State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 168
State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Liggons 348 N.W.2d 785 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
It is “something more than mere suspicion and something less than evidence which would sustain a conviction.” State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169
State v. Brown 345 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1984
State v. Brown 345 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 1984
See State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 167
State v. Brazil 269 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1978
State v. Brazil 269 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1978
163 [ ]), and a person cannot be arrested and searched merely because he is found in suspicious circumstances.
State v. Carlson 267 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1978
State v. Carlson 267 N.W.2d 170 Minn. 1978
See, e. g., State v. Cox, 294 Minn. 252 , State v. Bean, 280 Minn. 35 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163 , State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , , certiorari denied, 375 U.S. 867 , 84 S.Ct.
State v. Johnson 257 N.W.2d 308 Minn. 1977
State v. Clark 250 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1977
State v. Clark 250 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1977
1 See, State v. Fox, 283 Minn. 176 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163
State v. Barber 241 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1976
State v. Barber 241 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 1976
Paul v. Vaughn, 306 Minn. 337 , State v. Scroggins, 297 Minn. 144 , State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163
City of St. Paul v. Vaughn 237 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1975
City of St. Paul v. Vaughn 237 N.W.2d 365 Minn. 1975
State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403 , State v. Valstad, 282 Minn. 301 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163
State v. McKinley 232 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1975
State v. McKinley 232 N.W.2d 906 Minn. 1975
The state here asserts that this court in State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163 , has approved these license checks aimed at insuring the effective enforcement of Minn.St.
State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
State v. O'NEILL 216 N.W.2d 822 Minn. 1974
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L. ed. 2d 889 (1968); State v. Armstrong, 292 Minn. 471 , State v. Valstad, 282 Minn. 301 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163
State v. Wicklund 205 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1973
State v. Wicklund 205 N.W.2d 509 Minn. 1973
State v. Ellanson, 293 Minn. 490 , State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163
State v. Taras 504 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
State v. Armstrong 194 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1972
State v. Armstrong 194 N.W.2d 293 Minn. 1972
State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169
State Ex Rel. Trimble v. Hedman 192 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1971
State Ex Rel. Trimble v. Hedman 192 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1971
This court followed that decision in State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169 , saying: “* * * [P] robable cause for arrest exists where there is a reasonable ground for suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.
State v. Dax 188 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1971
State v. Dax 188 N.W.2d 422 Minn. 1971
Smith v. Hubbard, 253 Minn. 215 , 91 N. W. (2d) 756 ; State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163 , 159 N. W. (2d) 786 ; State v. Valstad, 282 Minn. 301 , 165 N. W. (2d) 19 .
City of St. Paul v. Duane Johnson Another 179 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1970
City of St. Paul v. Duane Johnson Another 179 N.W.2d 317 Minn. 1970
whether at the time of his arrest probable cause existed — that is, whether at the time of the arrest the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and regarding which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent officer or person in believing that the defendant had'committed or was committing an unlawful offense.” Moreover, as expressed in State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163, 169 , 159 N. W. (2d) 786 , 790: “* * * Probable cause is concerned with probabilities
State v. Fox 168 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1969
State v. Fox 168 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1969
In State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163 , 159 N. W. (2d) 786 , we discussed the lawfulness of a search without a warrant and pointed out that, subject to certain exceptions enumerated in Minn. St.
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
State v. Valstad 165 N.W.2d 19 Minn. 1969
State v. Fish, 280 Minn. 163 , 159 N. W. (2d) 786 .