Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Tungland, 281 N.W.2d 646.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Carlos Orlando Olivas-Varela, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Olivas-Varela’s argument is contradi cted by the Minnesota Supreme Court’s
State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
421 ); (also citing Rakas).
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
at 430 n. 12; see Rawl-ings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 , 100 S.Ct.
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
State v. Richards 552 N.W.2d 197 Minn. 1996
507, 512-13 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)
State v. Parker 417 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1988
State v. Parker 417 N.W.2d 643 Minn. 1988
(no objection or request for curative instruction); -83 (Minn.1985) (no objection or request for curative instruction); (no request for curative instruction); Caron, 300 Minn. at 127 , d at 200 (no objection or request for curative instruction).
State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
State v. Wilford 408 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1987
State v. Alexander 398 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Alexander 398 N.W.2d 24 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
State v. Sutherlin 396 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 1986
Relevant cases include: State v. Kirvelay, 311 Minn. 201
State v. Hodge 362 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hodge 362 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
we stated that the observation of an open bottle in open view in a car parked on a private lot did not give the investigating officer grounds for entering the car and searching a grocery bag because it is not a violation of the open bottle law for a person to leave an open bottle in a car parked in a priv
In Re the Welfare of A.J.M. 348 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
In Re the Welfare of A.J.M. 348 N.W.2d 379 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) which is whether the person claiming the protection of the Fourth Amendment “has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.”
State v. Hodges 287 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1979
State v. Hodges 287 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1979
421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); — defendant’s failure to pay his rent on time, without more, is not enough.
State v. Richards 284 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1979
State v. Richards 284 N.W.2d 549 Minn. 1979
e they ever actually entered the vehicle one of the officers saw through the window and in open view a partially uncased gun; 2 (c) this observation provided them with all they needed in the way of probable cause; and (d) under the motor vehicle exception they at that point clearly had the right to enter and search and/or seize, see, and State v. Lee, 302 Minn. 382