DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Slifka, 256 N.W.2d 90.

23 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (“The officers arguably had reasonable cause to believe that the driver constructively possessed the marijuana because the car was his and he was in control of the car.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (“The officers arguably had reasonable cause to believe that the driver constructively possessed the marijuana because the car was his and he was in control of the car [;]” the officers lacked such cause with respect to the defendant who was just a passenger).
  • State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
    we held that a passenger’s mere presence in a motor vehicle did not provide the officer probable cause to believe the passenger constructively possessed marijuana discovered in a closed glove compartment.
  • 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
    (officer did not have probable cause to search defendant, therefore the contraband abandoned by defendant because of the search was properly suppressed at trial); (where defendant abandoned cocaine after he was illegally stopped, the abandonment was the suppressible fruit of the illegality); (officers did not have probable cause to search passenger in a car, therefore the marijuana defendant tried to abandon because of the search was properly suppressed at trial).
  • State v. Eggersgluess 483 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Eggersgluess 483 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (officers who saw open bottle on front seat had probable cause to search driver but not defendant who was a passenger in the front seat; officers could not search merely because he was present in the vehicle).
  • State v. Bigelow 451 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bigelow 451 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1990
  • State v. Bigelow 447 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Bigelow 447 N.W.2d 899 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
  • State v. Albino 384 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
  • State v. Albino 384 N.W.2d 525 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
    State v. Clark, 312 Minn. 44
  • State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Zuehlke 320 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 1982
  • State v. Dineen 296 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Dineen 296 N.W.2d 421 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Neville 293 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1980
  • State v. Neville 293 N.W.2d 37 Minn. 1980
    210 (1948); State v. Clark, 312 Minn. 44
  • State v. Brazil 269 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1978
  • State v. Brazil 269 N.W.2d 15 Minn. 1978
    (State v. Clark, Supra, ).