Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Crea, 233 N.W.2d 736.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jude Jerome Lague Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jude Jerome Lague Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(quotation omitted); (“[P]olice with legitimate business may enter areas within the curtilage of the home if those areas are impliedly open to the public.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Larry Francis Stevens, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Chute, d at 586; see also State v. Crea , (“[P]olice may walk on the sidewalk and onto the porch of a house and knock on the door if they are conducting an investigation and want to question the owner .
Scott Thomas LaClair, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 736, 738 (Minn. 1975).
Linette Lynn Cadwell, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 736, 739 (Minn. 1975).
A19-1029 Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Garages adjoining the home fall within the definition of curti lage.1 See State v. Crea , 39 (Minn. 1975); Haase v. Comm’r of Pub.
Bradley D. Fordyce, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, -85 (Minn. 2018) (discussing a police officer’s implied license to enter property); d 736, 739 (Minn. 1975) (stating that Fourth A mendment applies to curtilage).
Kurt William Sawyer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Chute 908 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2018
State v. Chute 908 N.W.2d 578 Minn. 2018
(citing State v. Crea , 305 Minn. 342 , , 739 (1975) ).
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Todd Chute 887 N.W.2d 834 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Although the Fourth Amendment refers only to ‘persons, houses, papers and effects,’ courts generally have held that it applies also to the ‘curtilage.’” State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342, 345
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
In sum, because the “rear driveway” area fails the Krech analysis, it was not under the “umbrella” of Fourth Amendment protection and the search was thereby constitutional.1 Appellant offers a final argument that, as a matter of law, driveways are considered curtilage under State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
951 (1932); State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342, 345
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
See State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342, 345-46
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342, 346
State v. Carter 569 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1997
State v. Carter 569 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1997
State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342, 346
State v. Alayon 459 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1990
State v. Alayon 459 N.W.2d 325 Minn. 1990
Relevant decisions of this court include State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342 , (holding that police without a warrant or probable cause may walk on sidewalk and onto porch of a house — areas of curtilage that are impliedly open to public — and knock on door in an attempt to get suspect to talk voluntarily with them), and State v. Buchwald, 293 Minn. 74 , (1
State v. Krech 403 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1987
State v. Krech 403 N.W.2d 634 Minn. 1987
Next, we note that, as we held in State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342, 346 , certain areas surrounding a dwelling are “impliedly open to use by the public.
State v. Lewis 270 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1978
State v. Lewis 270 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1978
The officers’ and agents’ initial entry onto the driveway falls well within our holding in State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342
State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
State v. Houff 243 N.W.2d 129 Minn. 1976
State v. Crea, 305 Minn. 342