Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Daniels, 200 N.W.2d 403.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The informant’s prior collaboration enhances the veracity of the tip because it puts the informant in “a position to be held accountable.” - 07 (Minn. 1972).
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
The threshold reappraisal principle derives from State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323 , where we noted that officers “do well either to employ less drastic alternatives or, even though granted a no-knock search warrant, to make a threshold reappraisal of the actual threat of the destruction of evidence.
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
1056, 1059-63 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967) (credibility of unidentified informant established by officer’s testimony that informant had proven reliable in the past); State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323, 329 , -07 (1972) (credibility sufficiently established by statement that informant’s information “recently resulted in narcotic arrests and convictions”); (illegal search did not invalidate subsequent warrant where warrant was supported b
State v. Gabbert 411 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gabbert 411 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Similarly, in State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323, 329 , -07 (1972), the informant was known to be credible because his previous tips had led to arrests.
State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
State v. Eling 355 N.W.2d 286 Minn. 1984
See State v. Lindquist, 295 Minn, at 401, d at 335; State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323
State v. Siegfried 274 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1978
State v. Siegfried 274 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1978
And see, State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323
State v. Hoven 269 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1978
State v. Lien 265 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1978
State v. Lien 265 N.W.2d 833 Minn. 1978
There are three leading Minnesota cases dealing with the issue of unannounced entries to execute search warrants: State v. Parker, 283 Minn. 127 , *837 (1969); State v. Linder, 291 Minn. 217 , and State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323
State v. Boerner 260 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1977
State v. Boerner 260 N.W.2d 564 Minn. 1977
State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323
State v. Mollberg 246 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1976
State v. Mollberg 246 N.W.2d 463 Minn. 1976
a barrel situated on the premises and further observed that the condition of the skin was fresh, such that it could not have been from a deer taken during any open season.” In State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323, 328 , this court stated: “* * * [P]ersonal observation satisfies that part of the Aguilar test which requires that the affidavit contain facts to enable the magistrate to judge whether the informant obtained his knowledge in a reliable manner.” *382 See, also, State v. Phelps, 297 Minn.
State v. Phelps 209 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1973
State v. Phelps 209 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1973
State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323
State v. Saver 205 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1973
State v. Saver 205 N.W.2d 508 Minn. 1973
State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323 , which discusses the relevant United States Supreme Court cases in detail, controls our disposition of the first issue.
State v. Lindquist 205 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1973
State v. Lindquist 205 N.W.2d 333 Minn. 1973
As in the recent case of State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323 , in which we discussed the United States Supreme Court cases in detail, we need not decide this point because we feel that numerous factors present in our case support the police officer’s conclusion that the informer was credible.