DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Curtis, 190 N.W.2d 631.

25 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    for the proposition that Minnesota courts forbid “the use of a minor traffic offense as a pretext for 8 searches directed at unrelated offenses.” But Curtis held that the pat-down search of an individual following their arrest for failing to turn without signaling was illegal because the offi
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    We 8 The state cites three cases to support its position that officer safety concerns permit a search in the absence of reasonable suspicion: State v. Lemert
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Even though the nature of the suspected drug crime did not necessarily suggest the presence of a weapon, the totality of the circumstances includes observing a hostile or threatening attitude, which respondent displayed after being confronted about 7 the overwhelming smell of marijuana.
  • State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Mobley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Mobley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    18, 2000); d 840, 843 (Minn. 1992) (stating that evasive conduct is relevant to determining whether weapons search is justified); State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 437, (stating that a suspect’s hostile or threatening attitude is relevant to determining whether weapons search is justified).
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.R. 718 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.R. 718 N.W.2d 480 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    When a police officer has a “valid reasonable basis for placing a lawfully stopped citizen in a squad car, a frisk will often be appropriate without additional individual articulable suspicion.” see also State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 437 , (providing that police may, for their own protection, search a person before placing him in a squad car).
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
    (holding that “the inability of a minor traffic violator to produce a driv *366 er’s license in and of itself is not a reasonable basis to require the driver to sit in the back of a squad car.”); cf. State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 436 , (holding that Fourth Amendment rights are protected against “routine” searches “arising out of ordinary traffic violations.”).
  • In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 437
  • 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
    See also State v. Gannaway, 291 Minn. 391, 392-93 , State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 431 , State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249, 254 , -28 (1966).
  • State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
    See also State v. Gannaway, 291 Minn. 391, 392-93 , State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 431 , State v. Clifford, 273 Minn. 249, 254 , -28 (1966).
  • State v. Gilchrist 299 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Hoven 269 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Hoven 269 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1978
    The reasoning of Amador-Gonzalez was explicitly accepted by this court in State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429, 434
  • State v. Scroggins 210 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1973
  • Distinguished State v. Scroggins 210 N.W.2d 55 Minn. 1973
    In reaching that determination, the court relied on State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429
  • State v. Ackerley 207 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Ackerley 207 N.W.2d 272 Minn. 1973
    Although defendant was apprehended while violating Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, §§ 854.060 and 4.010, which prohibit drinking beer on a public sidewalk, 1 the offense was a petty one, not unlike that which prompted the search we held improper in State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429
  • State v. Cross 206 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1973
  • State v. Cross 206 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 1973
    and perhaps for the *22 stolen billfold, but he contends that the scope or intrusive extent of the search, when viewed in relation to the minor offense for which he was arrested, the safety of the officer secured by the drawn weapons, and the finding that defendant possessed only a knife, became exploratory, exceeding the limits of reasonableness which, he argues, we condemned in State v. Curtis, 290 Minn. 429 , and State v. Gannaway, 291 Minn. 391