Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 314 N.W.2d 229.

67 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
That inquiry involves a determination of “whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To constitute probable cause for an arrest, the objective facts must be “such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
An arrest is lawful if it is supported by probable cause, which requires the objective facts to be “such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
9 To constitute probable cause for an arrest, the objective facts must be “such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” d 229, 230 (Minn. 1982) ().
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Reasonable or probable cause exists where “a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation 5 Heiderscheid appears to argue that the wallet should have been suppressed because Mandel found it after he concluded that Heiderscheid “was not armed.” We do not have to decide this issue because the district court found that Mandel ident
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Probable cause to arrest exists where the “objective facts are such that unde r the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotations omitted).
William Robert Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The fact that it later turns out that the officers were wrong does not 6 mean that they did not have probable cause at the time they made their assessment.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michael Douglas Metsala Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Probable cause to arrest exists when “the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence 6 [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lamont Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Probable cause to arrest exists when “the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Probable cause to arrest exists when “the objective facts are such that under the circumstances a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” (quotation omitted).
Teric Alan Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Teric Alan Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “[t]he test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence (would) entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ( (Mi
State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Loving 775 N.W.2d 872 Minn. 2009
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Probable cause exists if the objective facts indicate that “a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.” ().
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(“The fact that it later turns out that the officers were wrong does not mean that they did not have probable cause at the time they made their assessment.”).
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
State v. Perkins 582 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1998
State v. Perkins 582 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1998
(“The fact that it later turns out that the officers were wrong does not mean that they did not have probable cause at the time they made their assessment.”).
State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
Probable cause has been defined variously as “the objective facts” that under the circumstances would cause “a person of ordinary care and prudence [to] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed,” (internal quotes omitted); “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious [person] in believing the accused to be guilty,” (internal quotes omitted); “evidence sufficient to lead a reas
State v. Wynne 552 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
State v. Wynne 552 N.W.2d 218 Minn. 1996
“The test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” *222 ().
State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Bauerly 520 N.W.2d 760 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
II.C.05); (applying Cizl).
State v. Cornell 491 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Cornell 491 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Probable cause exists if the objective facts indicate that “a person of ordinary care and prudence [would] entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime had been committed.” ().
State v. Hanson 488 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Hanson 488 N.W.2d 511 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(drugs found in search incident to arrest held admissible where police had to estimate knife length “on the spot” and knife length later proved not to violate ordinance).
State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Smith 464 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
Johnson v. Morris 453 N.W.2d 31 Minn. 1990
Whether probable cause to arrest exists depends upon “whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances ‘a person of ordinary care and prudence (would) entertain an honest and strong suspicion’ that a crime has been committed.” ().
State v. Johnson 403 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Johnson 403 N.W.2d 319 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Mortland 395 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1986