Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. O'NEILL, 216 N.W.2d 822.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Otis Redmond Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Otis Redmond Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Here, as in State v. O’Neill, a radio report informed an officer that the suspect was armed, so “the officer[ was] justified for their own protection in holding the [suspect] at gunpoint until they were frisked for weapons.” 7 (Minn. 1974).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Terry, 392 U.S. at 24 , 88 S. Ct. at 1881; State v. O’Neill
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]here is a fine line between an arrest a nd an investigatory detention.” State v. O’Neill
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. O’Neill, -28 (Minn. 1974) (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
y for the protection of the investigatin g officers and the degree of force used is reasonable.” Id.; see State v. Nading , (holding that under totality of circumstances, fact that police ordered suspected burglars thought to be armed and dangerous to get out of car and lie on the ground did not convert a temporary detention into an arrest); State v. O’Neill, (holding that where “officers [knew] from [a] radio report that the occupants of [a] car were armed, the officers were justified for their
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In its ultimate resolution of the differing accounts of what occurred, the district court stated: So, I will just cite to State v. O’Neill, [], which is another Minnesota Supreme Court case from 1974, that stands for the proposition that if an officer making a reasonable investigatory stop has cause to believe that the individual is armed —which in this case there was cause to believe that —that officer is justified in procee ding ca
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[P]resumptions cannot be used in criminal cases to establish an essential element of the offense because it casts on defendant the burden of proving his innocence.” State v. O’Neill
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 68
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 65
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerome Deshawn Misters Minn. Ct. App. 2014
12 the same breath with a desire to remain silent.” State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 71
State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
We have recognized in the past that “[i]f an officer making a reasonable investigatory stop has cause to believe that the individual is armed, he is justified in proceeding cautiously with weapons ready.” State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 68
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Williams 535 N.W.2d 277 Minn. 1995
State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
State v. Thieman 439 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1989
In State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60 , this court stated: We hold that it is not improper for the police to approach a defendant after his initial refusal to cooperate and ask him to reconsider his silence.
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. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 68
State v. Auman 386 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Auman 386 N.W.2d 818 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 69
State v. Friend 385 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Friend 385 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The supreme court has also rejected the argument that a confession is inadmissible “if it is followed in the same breath with the desire to remain silent.” State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60, 71
Blaisdell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Blaisdell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Appellant cites a series of cases, including State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60 , for the proposition that Minnesota law allows police officers to investigate misdemean- or offenses.
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60
State v. Link 289 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 1979
State v. Link 289 N.W.2d 102 Minn. 1979
The question of a second Miranda warning is currently controlled in Minnesota by State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60
State v. Carl 246 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1976
State v. Carl 246 N.W.2d 192 Minn. 1976
esult of a resumption of custodial interrogation after defendant had initially exercised his privilege as a criminal suspect to remain silent, no proper *371 purpose would be served by a discussion of the arguable application of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96 , 96 S. Ct. 321 , 46 L. ed. 2d 313 (1975), or our decision in State v. O’Neill, 299 Minn. 60