DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McKinley, 232 N.W.2d 906.

97 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Adam Alan Penhollow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    The factual basis for the stop may be minimal; “[a]ll that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    The factual basis for the stop may be minimal; “[a]ll that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • A20-0912 Minn. Ct. App. 2021
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Anderson, d at 823; see also State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 304, d 906, 911 (1975) (“A ll that is required is that the stop not be the product of mere whim, 5 caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted)).
  • State v. Cox 807 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Cox 807 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    2574, 2581 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975) (holding that random, roving border stops designed to investigate smuggling violates Fourth Amendment); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 299-302 , -10 (1975) (holding that the random seizure of a driver to ask about license status was unconstitutional absent reasonable suspicion).
  • In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    In addition, police officers have a duty “to investigate suspicious behavior.” State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 302 , (quotation omitted).
  • Magnuson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 703 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Magnuson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 703 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 300
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
    1868 ; State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 300, 304 , 911 (1975) (discussing the constitutional standards embodied in the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 10, and adopting Terry principles for motor vehicle stops).
  • State v. Waddell 655 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Waddell 655 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2003
    Our court applied the principles of a Terry stop to automobiles in State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297
  • State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
    oncluding officer had specific and articulable reasons to suspect driver was under the influence of some intoxicant; thus investigative stop of vehicle was proper); (concluding evidence seized in vehicle stop must be suppressed where officer was unable to sufficiently articulate suspicion prompting stop); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 303-04 , -11 (Minn. 1975) (holding that police may not stop a driver for a routine license check absent reasonable suspicion of any motor-vehicle violation or
  • State v. Schrupp 625 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Schrupp 625 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 303
  • State v. Kittridge 613 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Kittridge 613 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 302-04, , 910-11 (1975).
  • State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    (officer must be unaware of facts dispelling suspicion that revoked owner is driving); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 304 , (stop may not be based on “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity”).
  • State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 302, (stop and frisk of defendant unlawful, when officers neither observed any unlawful or suspicious conduct on part of defendant nor had knowledge of cancellation of his driver’s license).
  • State v. Hickman 491 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Hickman 491 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    In State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 303-304 , officers asked to see the license of a motorist whom they had observed park his car after driving lawfully through an alley.
  • State v. Tilleskjor 488 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Tilleskjor 488 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 303 , Engwer v. Commissioner of Pub.
  • State v. Johnson 439 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Johnson 439 N.W.2d 400 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
    In State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297 , the officers stopped defendant after they observed him drive down an alley and park his car in a stall behind an apartment around 6:00 p.m.
  • State v. Sorenson 430 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • STATE, CITY OF ST. PETER v. Plut 400 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • STATE, CITY OF ST. PETER v. Plut 400 N.W.2d 377 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    Asking appellant to step out of the car, however, was not “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity,” see State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 304 , (quoting People v. Ingle, 36 N.Y.2d 413, 420 , 330 N.E.2d 39, 44 , 369 N.Y.S.2d 67, 74 (1975)), but was an act contemporaneous with Mattson’s investigation of the disturbance at the restaurant.
  • Holstein v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Anderson 391 N.W.2d 527 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    “All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297, 304
  • State v. Davis 390 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reese 388 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Reese 388 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297
  • Blaisdell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 381 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 1986
  • Blaisdell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • Blaisdell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 375 N.W.2d 880 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    1391, 1395 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); see also State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297
  • State v. Giebenhain 374 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Giebenhain 374 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    As the court stated in State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297 , “ ‘[a]ll that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.’ ” Id.
  • State v. Tottenham 368 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
  • State v. Tottenham 368 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
    1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297 , ).
  • Doheny v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 1985