Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gonzales, 314 N.W.2d 825.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
8 valid where the “address stated in [the] warrant was reasonable for the location intended and the error did not create a reasonable probability that an innocent party’s residence would be mistakenly searched.” (“A search warrant with an incorrect house number does not lack sufficient particularity when the defendant suffers no prejudice, the house intended to be searched was searched, and the executing officer went directly to the house
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An in correct zip code, in this instance, does not impair the officers’ ability to “locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort with no reasonable probability that [other premises] must be mistakenly searched.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Taylor 910 N.W.2d 60 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gonzales , , 827 (Minn. 1982) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The main purpose of the requirement is to minimize the risk that officers executing search warrants will by mistake search a place other than the place intended by the magistrate.” d 825, 827 (Minn. 1982) (quotation omitted).
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Bates 507 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
The test of whether the description of the premises is sufficient is if it enables the executing officer to “locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort” and with no “reasonable probability that [other premises] might be mistakenly searched.” (quoting United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371 (8th Cir.), cert.
Matter of TLK 487 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In re the Welfare of T.L.K. 487 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
In re the Welfare of T.L.K. 487 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Matter of TLK 487 N.W.2d 911 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Kessler 470 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Kessler 470 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dyer 438 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Dyer 438 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
(quoting United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371 (8th Cir.), cert.
State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
State v. Hinkel 353 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Hinkel 353 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Schnorr 346 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Schnorr 346 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
The test for determining the sufficiency of the description of the premises is whether the description is sufficient so that the executing officer can “ ‘locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort’ with no ‘reasonable probability that [other premises] might be mistakenly searched.’ ” (quoting United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371 (8th Cir.), cert.
State v. Braasch 316 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1982
State v. Braasch 316 N.W.2d 577 Minn. 1982