Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lien, 265 N.W.2d 833.

81 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Floyd Joseph Moen, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
2 law-enforcement officers executed a search warrant at an 2 The supreme court has noted, in the context of a discussion of a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, that Lien has been "overruled on other grounds" by Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In explaining this rule, t he supreme court reaffirmed its decision in State v. Lien , 9 overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Wisconsin , 520 U.S. 385, 117 S. Ct. 1416 (1997), where suppression of evidence obtained during a nighttime search was not required when the police, prior to entry, observed that the occupant had just returned home, that he was fully clothed, that ther
State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
overruled on other grounds by Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 , 117 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jordan 726 N.W.2d 534 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Underlying the Minnesota statutory rule ...’ is the belief that a nighttime search of a home involves a much greater intrusion upon privacy and is presumably more alarming than an ordinary daytime search of a home.” -40 (Minn.1978); (stating that in adopting section 626.14 “[t]he legislature recognized that entry into a residence in the middle of the night is a greater invasion of residential privacy than entry during the 'daytime”).
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
3 We *926 have noted that the question of whether a nighttime search is authorized is the subject of statutory regulation in Minnesota, and that the issue “may also have a constitutional dimension.”
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Goodwin 686 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Goodwin 686 N.W.2d 40 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
order to successfully and safely execute the warrant”; (2) police “inform the issuing magistrate of the circumstances which they believe justify the unannounced entry”; (3) police obtain advance authorization for the unannounced entry; and (4) police show that an entry that is announced “will result in the destruction of evidence or in danger to the officers executing the warrant.”
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
Johnson v. State 673 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2004
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
Respondents’ challenge to the unannounced entry was rejected on the postconviction court’s and the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 , 117 S.Ct.
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Police seeking a search warrant authorizing an unannounced entry “must inform the issuing magistrate of the circumstances which they believe justify the unannounced entry and obtain specific advance authorization for it.”
Garza v. State 619 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Garza v. State 619 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(holding no-knock entry authorized if application shows house is being used as a drug outlet).
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
We laid out the principles governing an unannounced entry of a -39 (Minn.1978).
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
See, (exclusionary rule will not be applied to all statutory violations).
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lunsford 507 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
-05 (Minn.1985) (suppression not required of all evidence seized in searches constituting or arising from a violation of statute if violation was technical and “did not subvert the basic purpose of the statute”); -41 (Minn.1978) (technical violation of statutory prohibition of nighttime execution of search warrant absent court determination of necessity did not require suppression seized in otherwise lawful search).
In Re the Welfare of D.A.G. 474 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In Re the Welfare of D.A.G. 474 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
As to the application of the exclusionary rule to a violation of a rule or statute, as opposed to a violation of constitution, (police violation of statute governing right of non-English-speaking suspect to interpreter does not require suppression); -41 (Minn.1978) (nighttime execution of search warrant was a statutory violation not mandating exclusion of the evidence seized).
State v. Alt 469 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991