Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Causey, 257 N.W.2d 288.

34 citing documents.

Debra Ann Edwards, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The question of whether to admit or exclude evidence rests within the broad discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed unless it is based on an 1 The Franks test is derived from Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, -92 (Minn. 1977).
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Nagle Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Lynn Nagle Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Katherine Trinka Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A search warrant is void, and the fruits of the search must be excluded, if the application includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause.” (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S. Ct. at 2684-85, ).
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(noting that police transmission of notes of conversations created risk of error).
State v. Larson 447 N.W.2d 593 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
State v. Moore 438 N.W.2d 101 Minn. 1989
2674, 2684-2685 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)
State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1989
State v. Olson 436 N.W.2d 92 Minn. 1989
but in Causey a magistrate had found probable cause for issuing a search warrant based on information supplied by a known reliable informant who accompanied the officer to the defendant’s residence, where a car registered to a convicted drug possessor was parked.
State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
State v. Burns 394 N.W.2d 495 Minn. 1986
and *498 Doan v. State, 290 Minn. 105
State v. Randa 342 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1984
State v. Randa 342 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1984
2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)——the United States Supreme Court held that if it is established that the affiant deliberately falsified or recklessly disregarded the truth in his affidavit, then the trial court should set aside the false statements or supply the omissions and decide whether the affidavit still established probable cause.
State v. Doyle 336 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
State v. Doyle 336 N.W.2d 247 Minn. 1983
Franks — — held that if it is established that the affiant deliberately falsified or recklessly disregarded the truth in his affidavit, then the trial court should set aside the false statements (or supply the omissions 2 ) and decide whether the affidavit still establishes probable cause.
State v. Carson 320 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1982
State v. Carson 320 N.W.2d 432 Minn. 1982
State v. Filipi 297 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1980
State v. Filipi 297 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1980
Even where an informant is not credible, his information may be sufficiently reliable where it is supported by “corroborating factors [that] provide a substantial basis for crediting the informant’s tip * * *.”
State v. Buchholtz 295 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1980
State v. Buchholtz 295 N.W.2d 629 Minn. 1980
and cases cited at 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 3.3(d) (1978).
State v. Siegfried 274 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1978
State v. Siegfried 274 N.W.2d 113 Minn. 1978
and State v.. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376
State v. Martinez 270 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1978
State v. Martinez 270 N.W.2d 121 Minn. 1978