Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carlson, 267 N.W.2d 170.

106 citing documents.

Chad Loran Siegel, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Probable cause exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.”
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
9 To constitute probable cause for an arrest, the objective facts must be “such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” d 229, 230 (Minn. 1982) ().
Shawn Richard Burrington, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Probable cause to support a charge “exists where the facts wou ld lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong su spicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.” State v. Carlson
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Carlson , (“Probable cause exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In applying this test, a court should not be unduly technical and should view the circumstances in light of the whole of the arresting officer’s police experience as of the time of the arrest.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Probable cause to arrest exists when “the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricky Harry Gruber 864 N.W.2d 628 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is guilty of a crime.” see also Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S. Ct. 795, 800 (2003) (“[T]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.” (quotation omitted)); Minn. Stat. § 629.34, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015
is guilty of a crime.” see also Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S. Ct. 795, 800 (2003) (“[T]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt.” (quotation omitted)); Minn. Stat. § 629.34, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In applying this test, a court should not be unduly technical and should view the circumstances in light of the whole of the arresting officer’s police experience as of the time of the arrest.”
Teric Alan Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Teric Alan Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “[t]he test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence (would) entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Haukos 847 N.W.2d 270 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Probable cause exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.”
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(in determining probable cause the court must “view the circumstances in light of the whole of the arresting officer’s police experience as of the time of the arrest.”); (“Probable cause is not based upon the ‘reasonable man’ concept, but upon the si
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Ahmed 708 N.W.2d 574 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Expert testimony on the statistical possibility of an event has been excluded because of its “potentially exaggerated impact on the trier of fact.” ().
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Prax 686 N.W.2d 45 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Probable cause to arrest exists when, under the totality of facts and circumstances, “a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” () (quotation marks omitted).
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
State v. Bailey 677 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2004
(citing Laurence Tribe, Trial by Mathematics, 84 Harv.
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Roman Nose 667 N.W.2d 386 Minn. 2003
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
neither appellant nor Saarela could produce identification; and (5) appellant produced $570 in cash from his pockets, which he claimed was for “supplies.” While these facts alone might not justify a conviction, they are sufficient to “lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime.” -74 (Minn.1978).
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Probable cause exists if the objective facts indicate that “a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” ().
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Ortiz 626 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
•• -74 (Minn.1978); (“[T]he police must show that they ‘reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.’ ”).
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
2317 ; -74 (Minn. 1978).
State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Hendricks 586 N.W.2d 413 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Wynne 552 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
State v. Wynne 552 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” *222 ().