Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ferrise, 269 N.W.2d 888.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mya Oo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mya Oo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, (stating that when an officer opened a car’s passenger door to speak with the passenger because he could not see inside, “[t]he test is the reasonableness of the intrusion under all the circumstances, and in this case the minimal intrusion was completely reasonable and proper”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The supreme court has recognized that “there is little practical difference between ordering a driver to open his door and get out of his car, on the one hand, and opening the door for the driver and telling him to get out, on the other.”
Royce James Stute, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Jebah Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jebah Doe Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See, (holding an officer opening a vehicle door was reasonable where the vehicle was covered in snow and the officer could not see the passenger); (holding an officer opening a vehicle door was reasonable when responding to a call that someone was as
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
to support its argument that the deputy did not expand the scope of the stop by opening Stevenson’s door.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-91 (Minn. 1978) (determining that an officer’s act of opening a vehicle’s passenger door to talk to a passenger was reasonable, noting that the officer “had a good reason” for doing so).
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding that officer safety and other concerns authorize police officers to open car doors during an investigatory seizure).
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); , 892 n. 1 (Minn.1978).
State v. Fay 488 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Fay 488 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
890 n. 1 (Minn.1978) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that where a police officer wanted to see if a passenger of a lawfully stopped car could aid in accurately identifying the driver and the officer opened the car door, the intrusion into the passenger’s privacy was minimal, reasonable and proper.
State v. Liljedahl 327 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1982
State v. Liljedahl 327 N.W.2d 27 Minn. 1982
330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)
State v. Willis 320 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1982
State v. Willis 320 N.W.2d 726 Minn. 1982
the police officer opened the door of a car in order to ask if a passenger could aid in accurately identifying the driver, who had no license.
State v. Gilchrist 299 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1980
State v. Gilchrist 299 N.W.2d 913 Minn. 1980
330 , 332 n. 1, 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977) ( , 890 n. 1 (1978)).
State v. Richards 284 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1979
State v. Richards 284 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1979
330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977)