Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bale, 267 N.W.2d 730.

23 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
19 Purpose and Flagrancy of Police Misconduct The purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct in conducting an unlawful search “is especially important, because the aim of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to disregard constitutional guarantees.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A. Purpose and Flagrancy of Police Misconduct The purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct in conducting the illegal search “is especially important, because the aim of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to disregard constitutional guarantees.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-33 7 In accordance with supreme court precedent, we are not adopting a per se rule that applies to all fleeing charges following an illegal stop.
Explained State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Purpose or Flagrancy of the Misconduct First, we examine the purpose or flagrancy of the officers’ misconduct, which is “especially important, because the aim of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct by removing the incentive to disregard constitutional guarantees.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
And this behavior is a far cry from the assaultive acts towards officers which Minnesota courts have concluded constitutes an otherwise “int ervening circumstance.” See, e.g., State v. Kittleson , (appellant pointed a gun at an officer who had entered the room to investigate a call on an assault with a dangerous weapon); State v. Bale , (appellant pointed a pistol at the arresting officer before engaging in a “s cuffle” with the officer); State v. Combs , rev’d in part on other grounds , (arrest
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
12 Likewise, we are satisfied that the surveillance recordings and the revolver were discovered by means “sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint .” Maldonado-Arreaga, d at 80 (quotation omitted); see also State v. Bale , -33 (Minn. 1978) (applying the same factors as in Maldonado-Arreaga and concluding the circumstances between an arrest for a misdemeanor traffic offense and evidence seized after a physical assault on the arresting officer are so attenuated as to purge th
State of Minnesota v. Charles Carlester Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Carlester Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
for the proposition that the evidence must be excluded.
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
407 ); consultation with and represented by counsel, Carnejo-Molina v. INS, 649 F.2d 1145, 1149 (5th Cir.1981); and brandishing of a gun toward the arresting officer, -33 (Minn.1978).
State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
407, 417 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); -33 (Minn.1978).
City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 ] ”); -33 (Minn.1978) (even if defendant’s violent response to arrest would not have occurred “but for” the illegal arrest, the evidence of the violent response would not be suppressed); (“It is well settled that even when police conduct an illegal arrest or s
State v. Combs 394 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Combs 394 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The supreme court disagreed and determined that the evidence had been properly admitted because “the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of the evidence of this assault on the officer even if the entry was in violation of [the fourth amendment].” Id.; -33 (Minn.1978).
State v. Kittleson 305 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1981
State v. Kittleson 305 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1981
3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 11.4(j) (1978).
State v. Seefeldt 292 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1980
State v. Seefeldt 292 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 1980
see 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 1.3 (1978).
State v. Sickels 275 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1979
State v. Sickels 275 N.W.2d 809 Minn. 1979
2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); State v. Raymond, 305 Minn. 160