Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vohnoutka, 292 N.W.2d 756.

98 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
General ly, it is not a seizure for a law- 7 enforcement officer “to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.”
Royce James Stute, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And as previously stated, “courts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Generally, a person is not seized “merely because a police officer approaches him in a public place or in a parked car and begins to ask questions.” (explaining that generally a person is not seized when “an officer .
State of Minnesota v. Paul Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Paul Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Although a seizure generally occurs when a police officer stops a vehicle, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996), the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that “it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.” see also Harris, d at 98 (“A person generally is not seized merely because a police officer approaches him in a public place or in a parked car and begins
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
) , rev. denied (Minn. May 24, 1989), cited in Klotz v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But we generally have held that it does not by 5 itself constitute a seizure for an officer to “simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Garrett Thomas Cekalla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Vohnoutka , Klotz v. Comm’r of Pub.
Thomas Randal Schreyer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Although a seizure generally occurs when a police officer stops a vehicle, Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996), courts ha ve held that “it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to s imply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[C]ourts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.” d 687, 692-93 (Minn. App. 2012) (concluding that trooper’s approach of already -stopped vehicle to check welfare of occupants was not a seizure).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“In numerous cases [the supreme court has] upheld against fourth amendment challenge[s] the practice of police officers routinely shining flashlights into automobiles, the only exception being when the officers unlawfully acquire their position vis -a-vis the vehicles, as when they unlawfully stop cars.” d 756, 757 (Minn. 1980) (discussing that “courts have consistently upheld the use of a flashlight by a police officer to look through a window into an automobile,” so long as the officer’s posit
Paul Robert Mix, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 “[C]ourts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.” see also Klamar, d at 693 (concluding that trooper’s approach of already-stopped vehicle to check welfare of occupants was not seizure).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Crawford v. Comm’r of Pub.
Rita Dolores Illi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 873 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rita Dolores Illi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 873 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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
10 the state argues that no seizure requiring reasonable suspicion or probable cause occurred until after an officer approaching the parked SUV had observed Hunter holding a bag of cocaine.
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
see also Norman v. Comm’r of Pub.
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[C]ourts generally have held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car.”
State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(holding that no seizure of vehicle occurred because vehicle was already stopped, defendant did not try to drive away, and officer had a right to walk up to vehicle, which is where officer was when he observed marijuana).
State v. Lopez 698 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lopez 698 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
see also Crawford v. Comm’r of Public Safety
State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 502 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1993
In Re the Welfare of E.D.J. 502 N.W.2d 779 Minn. 1993
Applying that standard, we have held, for example, that generally the mere act of approaching a person who is standing on a public street or sitting in a car that is parked and asking questions is not a “seizure.” See, -58 (Minn.1984)
State v. Hanson 501 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Hanson 501 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Blank v. Commissioner of Pub.
State v. Day 461 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Day 461 N.W.2d 404 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
In determining there was no seizure of appellant, in which the supreme court found no seizure occurred when the officer ap *407 proached a parked automobile and shined a flashlight into the passenger compartment.