Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Barber, 241 N.W.2d 476.

59 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(upholding stop based on observation of a broken windshield, no front license plate, and an upside-down rear plate); (upholding stop based on observation that license plates were attached with wires rather than bolts).
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
stopping the vehicle.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. Pleas , - 33 (Minn. 1983) (upholding denial of suppression motion because the investigating officer observed minor traffic violations, including a broken windshield, a missing front license plate, and a rear plate that was attached upside down); -77 (Minn. 1976) (upholding denial of suppression motion because the investigating officer observed that the license plate was wired on rather than bolted on).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
But a stop is not valid if it is based on “mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted); (“[R]easonable suspicion requires something more than an unarticulated hunch .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing State v. Pleas , , 333 -34 (Minn. 1983) (upholding stop based on officer’s observation of broken windshield, no front license plate, and rear plate upside down); State 5 v. Barber, (upholding stop based on officer’s observation that license plate was wired on rather than bolted on)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
7 The stop must not be “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 206
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The stop must not be “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 206, (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. June 30, 1987).
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
iolation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” (upholding stop where defendant was observed driving slowly and weaving within his lane); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 207, (upholding traffic stop based on officer’s observation that a vehicle’s license plate was wired, not bolted on); Gerding v. Comm’r of Pub.
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
2 (2010); see, e.g., State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 205-06 , -77 (1976).
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
at 823 ; see also State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 207 , (upholding traffic stop based on officer’s observation that vehicle’s license plate was wired on to the vehicle rather than bolted on); see also Gerding v. Comm’r of Pub.
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” see also, (upholding a stop based on an officer’s observation of a broken windshield, no front license plate, and upside down rear license plate); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (upholding a stop based on an officer’s observation that a vehicle’s license plates were wired on rather than bolted on).
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
The state argues that this case is indistinguishable from State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
See, (upholding stop based on officer’s observation of broken windshield, no front license plate, and rear plate upside down), and State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (upholding stop based on officer’s observation that license plate was wired on rather than bolted on).
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See, e.g., State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (license plates attached by wire); (loud exhaust noises).
State v. Greyeagle 541 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Greyeagle 541 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(police justified in stopping car after driver engaged in evasive driving behavior); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (police justified in stopping car where license plates were affixed to the vehicle in an unusual manner).
Playle v. Commissioner of Public Safety 439 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Kotewa v. Commissioner of Public Safety 409 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Kotewa v. Commissioner of Public Safety 409 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 206
State v. Delaney 406 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Delaney 406 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , the only fact justifying the stop was that a police officer had observed that license plates on an automobile had been wired on with baling wire instead of being bolted on.
State v. Clark 394 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Clark 394 N.W.2d 570 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(stop proper when based solely on an informant’s claim of tailgating); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (although plates displayed properly, officer’s inference of possible criminal act from fact that plates were wired on with baling wire justified stop).
Paulson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paulson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 206
Engwer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Engwer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , an observation that a car’s license plate was wired on rather than bolted on provided sufficient justification for the officer to stop the vehicle and investigate.
State v. Bender 381 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Bender 381 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Compare State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (wired-on license plate led police officer to suspect plate was from another vehicle).
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , the court affirmed a stop by a highway patrolman who observed license plates on an automobile wired on with baling wire.
Thomeczek v. Commissioner of Public Safety 364 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Thomeczek v. Commissioner of Public Safety 364 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , an officer noticed license plates wired on to a car, rather than bolted, and suspected the car was stolen.
State v. DeSart 357 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. DeSart 357 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , an observation that a car’s license plates were wired rather than bolted on justified the officer’s decision to stop the vehicle and investigate.
State v. Claussen 353 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984