Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404.

38 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
(–06 (Minn. 1977) (holding that an arrest based on probable cause for possessing a small amount of marijuana was unconstitutional and, as a result, so was a search incident to that arrest)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[A]n officer ordinarily may not arrest a person without a warrant for a petty misdemeanor.”) (footnote omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
As such, not one of the circumstances, “in and of itself,” is sufficient to “trigger the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Ortega, d at 149 n.2 (citing State v. Martin , -06 (Minn. 1977)).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gene Hoberg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gene Hoberg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[I]n all cases of lawful custodial arrest, the police may fully search the [arrested] person incident to the arrest,” but under rule 6.01, “an officer ordinarily may not arrest a person without a warrant for a petty misdemeanor.” -06 (Minn. 1977).
Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly 776 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Minneapolis Police Department v. Kelly 776 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-06 (Minn.1977) (finding arrest unjustified under rule 6.01); (same), review denied (Minn. June 18, 2000); -82 (Minn.App.2006) (upholding arrest *769 of e
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
First, while we upheld the suppression of evidence based upon a violation of Rule 6.01 (per curiam), we did so withoút articulating any standard for when a violation of the rules of procedure, as distinguished from a constitutional violation, might result in the suppression of evidence.
In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
P. 6.01; -06 (Minn.1977).
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
d at 795 ; (declining to decide whether an officer can conduct a search based on the issuance of a citation with no other independent justification).
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Carver 577 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Carver 577 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted rule 6.01 to mean that “an officer ordinarily may not arrest a person without a warrant for a petty misdemeanor.” Id.
State v. Hanson 488 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hanson 488 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 , 94 S.Ct.
State v. Nace 404 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nace 404 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
The appellate court, in Evans , cited with approval
State v. Hendrickson 395 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Hendrickson 395 N.W.2d 458 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Evans 373 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Evans 373 N.W.2d 836 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the Minnesota Supreme Court held a person possessing a small amount of marijuana may not be arrested and that a search of that person may not be justified as a search incident to arrest.
State v. Hanson 364 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1985
State v. Hanson 364 N.W.2d 786 Minn. 1985
City of Minneapolis v. Larsen 354 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
City of Minneapolis v. Larsen 354 N.W.2d 82 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Ludtke 306 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1981
State v. Ludtke 306 N.W.2d 111 Minn. 1981
With respect to the frisk issue
State v. Armstrong 291 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1980
State v. Armstrong 291 N.W.2d 918 Minn. 1980
The district court concluded that defendant’s custodial arrest for the petty misde *919 meanor of possessing a the arresting officer could not justify his search of the defendant’s car as being incident to a lawful arrest.