Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bitterman, 232 N.W.2d 91.

22 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
However, in its order denying appellant’s suppression motion, the district court relied in part on State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481
William Eduardo Fajardo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
During a lawful pat-frisk for weapons, an officer may remove a “har d object of substantial size” from a suspect’s person even tho ugh “the precise shape or natu re of [the object] is not discernible through outer clothing.” State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 486, d 91, 94 (1975).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
During a lawful pat-frisk for weapons, an officer may remove a “hard object of substantial size,” from a suspect even though “the precise shape or nature of [the object] is not discernible through outer clothing.” State v. Bitterman , 304 Minn. 481, 486
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that during a valid pat search for weapons, an officer may remove a “hard object of substantial size, [even though] the precise shape or nature of [the object] is not discernible through outer clothing.” State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 486
State v. Wynne 552 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
State v. Wynne 552 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 486 , 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(c) at 524 (2d ed. 1987).
State v. Dickerson 469 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dickerson 469 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
a typical pat-down frisk, only certain “tactile sensations produced by the pat-down will justify a further intrusion into the clothing” to seize the object and the “better view” is that “a search is not permissible when the object felt is soft in nature.” (quoting 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 9.4(c) at 130 (1978)); e.g., State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 486 , (seizure of prescription bottle, which was a hard object that, when felt through the clothes, the officer thought might be a weapo
State v. Gobely 366 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1985
State v. Gobely 366 N.W.2d 600 Minn. 1985
338 , 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979); State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 484 , nor would his refusal to identify himself in addition to his presence.
State v. Gobely 351 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Gobely 351 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481 , the defendant had also arrived at an apartment which was being searched pursuant to a valid warrant.
State v. Hinkel 353 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hinkel 353 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 485
State v. Alesso 328 N.W.2d 685 Minn. 1982
State v. Alesso 328 N.W.2d 685 Minn. 1982
(while plastic bag of powder was soft and presumably did not feel like a weapon through the clothing, the officer was justified in reaching in and seizing it because he had already lawfully found a plastic bag of marijuana in the defendant’s other pocket and therefore could assume that this packet which he felt also contained drugs); State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481 , (seizure of prescription bottle, which was a hard object that, when felt through the clothes, the officer thought might be a wea
State v. Clark 250 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1977
State v. Clark 250 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 1977
5 See, State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481