Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Childs, 269 N.W.2d 25.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Devondre Demont Pike Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devondre Demont Pike Minn. Ct. App. 2024
2; (confirming the legality of an arrest based upon 4 the provisions in Minn. Stat. § 629.366).
Eric Reetz, Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
2 (2016); see also State v. Childs, 5 (“Reasonable cause is .
Sumi Mukherjee, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Childs , , 27 (Minn. 1978).
State of Minnesota v. Tondalia Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tondalia Dubose Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–27 (Minn. 1978) (concluding that city police officer, who effected arrest while working during off-duty hours as security officer for drugstore, acted in “dual capacity” as both peace officer and privately employed security officer).
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Lakeisha Noal Ivy 873 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that under the shoplifting 7 arrest statute, a peace officer has right to detain when acting in his capacity as a security officer and right to arrest when acting in his capacity as peace officer).
In Re the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Strecker 777 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Temporary Immediate Suspension of the Family Child Care License of Strecker 777 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See, (defining probable cause as “circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty”); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 263-64 , (“The constitutional mandate requiring ‘probable cause’ and the statutory standard of ‘reas
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Jacobson 681 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
26 n. 1 (Minn.1978) (stating that although an order denying a motion to suppress evidence is not an appealable order, discretionary review is available when the parties have briefed the case, the record is adequately developed, and the evidence in question is important to the prosecution’s case).
State v. Mireles 619 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Mireles 619 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Although there is some precedent for granting discretionary review of pretrial evidentiary rulings (see, n. 1 (Minn.1978)), such discretion should only be exer cised where the parties have fully briefed the case, the record is adequately developed, and the evidence in question is important to the prosecution’s case.
State v. Soyke 585 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Soyke 585 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
26 n. 1 (Minn.1978) (explaining reason for extending discretionary review); Minn. R.Crim.
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
Wall v. Fairview Hospital & Healthcare Services 584 N.W.2d 395 Minn. 1998
See, (interpreting the shoplifting arrest statute); State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260, 263-64 , (holding that the constitutional standard of probable cause and the statutory standard of reasonable cause are synonymous).
State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
stances would cause “a person of ordinary care and prudence [to] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed,” (internal quotes omitted); “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious [person] in believing the accused to be guilty,” (internal quotes omitted); “evidence sufficient to lead a reasonably prudent person to believe there is a basis for the search,” Richardson, d at 579 (citing State v.
State v. Jennings 487 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Jennings 487 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Crook 485 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Crook 485 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Metz 422 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Metz 422 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Babcock 360 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Babcock 360 N.W.2d 466 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
26 n. 1 (Minn.1978); Thompson v. State, 284 Minn. 274, 277
Steinberg v. State, Department of Public Safety 357 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Steinberg v. State, Department of Public Safety 357 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Kvale 352 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Kvale 352 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 1984