Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wicklund, 205 N.W.2d 509.

33 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104, State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See, (corroborated informant’s tip); (handgun in plain view); d 803, 805-08 (Minn. 1979) (furtive gestures of occupants); d 509, 510-11 (Minn. 1973) (odor of burnt marijuana).
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
d. Consequently, the circumstances informing the officer’s probable cause determination consisted of considerably more than just the odor of paint fumes, including suspicious behavior by the vehicle’s occupants and an illegally parked vehicle.9 9 Torgerson points out that most case law on whether the odor of marijuana creates probable cause (including Moody) (per curiam), superseded by statute¸ Minn. Stat. § 152.15, subd.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In Ortega I, d at 854, this court held, citing State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, that the smell of burnt marijuana gave police probable cause to search the vehicle’s occupants.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that if an officer smelled marijuana before searching a vehicle then the search was justified under the automobile exception); see also State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (observing a search was justified after two officers detected the odor of marijuana); (stating that the odor of marijuana has historically provided an officer with probable cause to search), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(noting that officer properly conducted warrantless search of vehicle for marijuana where officer smelled marijuana emanating from the passenger compartment before the search); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (upholding warrantless search of vehicle after officer smelled odor of burnt marijuana and holding Fourth Amendment “does not require law- enforcement officers .
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ableness test and applies regardless of the amount of marijuana found on driver), aff’d, (“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (smell of burnt marijuana and driver’s “furtive movements” provided probable cause for vehicle search).
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
The court of appeals relied on State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403 , to find that the search that uncovered the cocaine in Ortega’s back pocket was justified.
State v. Ortega 749 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ortega 749 N.W.2d 851 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405
State v. Pierce 347 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Pierce 347 N.W.2d 829 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104 , State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403
State v. Veigel 304 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1981
State v. Veigel 304 N.W.2d 900 Minn. 1981
Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104 , State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403
State v. Armstrong 291 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1980
State v. Armstrong 291 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1980
Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104 , State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403
State v. Schultz 271 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1978
State v. Schultz 271 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 1978
State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403
State v. Hodgman 257 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1977
State v. Hodgman 257 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1977
State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403
City of St. Paul v. Moody 244 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1976
City of St. Paul v. Moody 244 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 1976
ld (1) that the police had a sufficient basis for the minimal intrusion occasioned by their knocking on the door of the car, State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (2) that the strong odor of paint fumes gave the police probable cause to believe that the occupants had been paint sniffing and justified their search for evidence of this offense, State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 402 , and (3) that the seizure of the gun, discovered in plain sight during this search, was proper.
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