Cited by

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

61 citing documents.

State v. Menard 341 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
which involved the suppression of evidence discovered following the investigatory stop of a vehicle of which the officer was “suspicious.” Applying the Terry standard, the court found the search to be unconstitutional because the officer could not articulate any reason for suspecting that criminal activit
State v. Gilchrist 299 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1980
State v. Gilchrist 299 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1980
2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297 , City of St.
State v. Cavegn 294 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980
State v. Cavegn 294 N.W.2d 717 Minn. 1980
Accord, e. g., State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297 , City of St.
Marben v. State, Department of Public Safety 294 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1980
Marben v. State, Department of Public Safety 294 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1980
1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
State v. Engholm 290 N.W.2d 780 Minn. 1980
this court held that a police officer’s stopping of an automobile was not justified because the officer could not articulate any reasons for being suspicious of defendant’s automobile.
State v. Hodgman 257 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1977
Distinguished State v. Hodgman 257 N.W.2d 313 Minn. 1977
This case is distinguishable from State v. Johnson, Minn., , filed herewith, in that Kennedy was able to articulate the observations which aroused his suspicions whereas in the Johnson case the officer was unable to say what aroused his suspicions.