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. Luciow, 240 N.W.2d 833.

34 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
    When defendants seek to discover the actual identity of an informant, the privilege applies, and they must “establish that such disclosure is necessary to complete [an] evidentiary attack on the supporting affidavit.”
  • State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    In State v. Luciow , 308 Minn. 6 , the supreme court stated generally that a defendant may be "entitled to some form of disclosure of an informant's identity if [the defendant] can establish that such disclosure is necessary to complete his evidentiary attack on the supporting affidavit."
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 6-7
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
  • State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
    See State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6
  • State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
    -562 (Minn.1979); State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 13-14
  • State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • State v. Wessels 424 N.W.2d 572 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    Wessels may have a right to know the informant’s identity, either for the purpose of attacking the validity of the search warrant, see State v. Ludow, 308 Minn. 6, 14 , or of defending his case on the merits.
  • State v. Ailport 412 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Ailport 412 N.W.2d 35 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 13-14
  • State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Marshall 411 N.W.2d 276 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    The trial court ordered an in-camera hearing to determine if the confidential, reliable informants could provide any exculpatory evidence which would assist Marshall’s defense, State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , and after questioning two of the informants, ruled that none could provide any exculpatory evidence.
  • State v. Kipp 384 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Kipp 384 N.W.2d 230 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    See State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , (no appeal as of right lies from an order determining that probable cause existed for a search); State v. Hardin, 294 Minn. 556 , (no appeal lies from an order denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint); State v. Dailson, 286 Minn. 549 , (no
  • State v. Brunes 373 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Brunes 373 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    Unable to rule on probable cause, the court ordered in camera examination of the informant relying on State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6
  • Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
  • Syrovatka v. State 278 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1979
    See, e. g., State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , and State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1
  • Hughes v. Dakota County 278 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1978
  • Hughes v. Dakota County 278 N.W.2d 44 Minn. 1978
    The prosecution, on the authority of State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , d *45 833, ultimately dropped all charges against McClure rather than reveal the identity of the confidential informant.
  • State v. Lewis 270 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Lewis 270 N.W.2d 891 Minn. 1978
    On appeal defendants argue, relying principally on State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 7 , that the hearing judge’s refusal to compel disclosure of the putative informant’s identity unfairly hindered their efforts to show that the police and Federal agents acted without probable cause.
  • State v. Martinez 270 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Martinez 270 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1978
    State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , State v. Villalon, 305 Minn. 547 , State v. Werber, 301 Minn. 1
  • State v. Houle 257 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Houle 257 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Luciow, Minn., we dealt with a defendant’s right to challenge the truth and accuracy of allegations made by an undisclosed informant in a facially sufficient affidavit used to obtain a search warrant.
  • State v. Causey 257 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Causey 257 N.W.2d 288 Minn. 1977
    Defendant had the opportunity to explore the factual basis of the affidavit’s contents at a Rasmussen hearing, granted by the court below prior to our decision in State v. Luciow, Minn.
  • State v. Nolting 254 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1977
  • State v. Nolting 254 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 1977
    In State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6 , this court held that the defendant’s prima-facie showing of material misrepresentation entitled him to challenge the validity of a facially sufficient affidavit at the omnibus hearing sanctioned by Rule 11, Rules of Criminal Procedure.