Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 257 N.W.2d 308.

61 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See, e.g., State v. Johnson , -09 (Minn. 1977) (holding that a traffic stop was unlawful where the officer testified that “something had aroused his suspicion,” but was unable to articulate the facts that made him suspicious).
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court said, “Th[is] where, although there was some indication in the record that the officer may have observed what might be termed ‘an evasive maneuver’ by the driver, the officer was totally unable to articulate at the omnibus hearing why he became suspicious of the vehicle.” Johnson, d at 827.
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The stop cannot be “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (citation omitted).
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Indeed, Sergeant Boucher’s ability to articulate why the specific driving behavior he saw led him to suspect impaired driving demonstrates that the stop was based on more than “mere whim.” (quotation omitted).
Timothy John Bozikowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Timothy John Bozikowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This standard requires only that the stop not be “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)).
Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
s driving reported by another driver was sufficient to provide officer with a specific and articulable suspicion of a violation sufficient to warrant vehicle stop); (concluding 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 Min
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
(concluding that stop is illegal when officer unable to articulate what aroused suspicion).
State v. Dalos 635 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Dalos 635 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The factual basis required to support a traffic stop for a routine traffic check is minimal, but the stop must not be the product of “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.”
State v. Baumann 616 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Baumann 616 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
2 “[T]he factual basis required to support the stop for a routine traffic check is minimal.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
1581 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)
State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In fact, all that is required is that the stop must not be “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
Kranz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 539 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kranz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 539 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
1581, 1585 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); ).
State v. Petrick 527 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1995
Distinguished State v. Petrick 527 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1995
where, although there was some indication in the record that the officer may have observed what might be termed “an evasive maneuver” by the driver, the officer was totally unable to articulate at the omnibus hearing why he became suspicious of the vehicle.
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carradine v. State 494 N.W.2d 77 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hickman 491 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hickman 491 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Johnson v. Morris 445 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Johnson v. Morris 445 N.W.2d 563 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
State v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
1581, 1585 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989)
State v. Combs 394 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Combs 394 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
67 , 74, 330 N.E.2d 39, 44 (1975) ( ).
State v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“All that is required is that the stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.”
Holstein v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Davis 390 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Warrick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Warrick v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 585 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. DeRose 365 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. DeRose 365 N.W.2d 284 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Larson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Larson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 358 N.W.2d 154 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. DeSart 357 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. DeSart 357 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Menard 341 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1984