Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hodges, 287 N.W.2d 413.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
Thus, we have recognized several exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including the inevitable discovery 20 exception, Licari, d at 254; a limited good-faith exception, Lindquist, d at 876; and the independent source doctrine, d 413, 415–16 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
a, n.7 (Minn. 1990) (quotation o mitted) (considering the law of “severance” and “partial invalidity” in the Fourth Amendment context , despite neither party discussing their applicability, but concluding the doctrines were not “novel or questionable”); (applying the inevitable-discovery doctrine); -16 (Minn. 1979) (applying the independent-source doctrine).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2022
see also State v. Hodges , –16 (Minn. 1979).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But i f lawfully obtained information establishes probable cause for the search warrant, “and, by itself and apart from any tainted information, would have justified issuance of the search warrant, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is admitted.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
If the state does obtain evidence through an unlawful search, the evidence may still be admissible if the state can show that 17 “the police had an independent source of [the] information.” d 413, 415 (Minn. 1979); see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 443, 104 S. Ct. 2501, 2508 (1984) (“The independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2529, 2533 (1988); see also State v. Hodges , -16 (Minn. 1979).
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
() (internal quotation marks omitted); see Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 617-18 , 81 S.Ct.
State v. Dotson 900 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Dotson 900 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concluding that reserving the right to enter the premises in a lease does not confer authority to provide consent for warrantless search but also concluding suppression was unnecessary on other grounds).
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that illegally seized evidence cannot “be used to furnish probable cause” for a subsequent search warrant), aff’d on other grounds, (providing that “where the court held that if lawfully obtained information establishes probable cause and, by itself and apart from any tainted information, would have justified issuance of the search warrant, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is admitted”).
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
Moreover, we held that a renter of a storage unit had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 11.4(f) (2d ed.1987).
State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding an unlawful entry of a warehouse by police, the exclusionary rule did not require suppression of evidence subsequently seized pursuant to a warrant.
State v. Buswell 449 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Buswell 449 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Metz 422 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Metz 422 N.W.2d 754 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Kumpula 355 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1984
State v. Kumpula 355 N.W.2d 697 Minn. 1984
(search warrant affidavit contained information obtained illegally by police during a search of lessee’s property consented to by lessor, who did not have authorization to give such consent; however, exclusionary rule did not require suppression of property seized during warranted search because there was
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.”