Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Duesterhoeft, 311 N.W.2d 866.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
( stating that “searches based on honest, reasonable mistakes of fact are unobjectionable under the Fourth Amendment”); d 866, 868 (Minn. 1981); City of St.
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
An investigatory stop of a vehicle is valid if an officer has “specific and articulable facts establishing reasonable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When making an investigatory traffic stop, a police officer must have specific and articulable facts that establish “‘reasonable suspicion’ of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When making an investigatory stop of a vehicle, a police officer must have “‘specific and articulable facts’ establishing ‘reasonable s uspicion’ of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
pose, constitutes a ‘seizure’ of ‘persons’ within the meaning of this provision.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809- 10, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1772 (1996) (citations omitted).When making an investigatory stop of a vehicle, a police officer must have specific and articulable facts that establish “reasonable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
When making an investigatory stop of a vehicle, a police officer must have specific and articulable facts that establish “‘reasonable suspicion’ of a motor vehicle 6 violation or criminal activity.” (citation omitted).
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Duesterhoeft , , 867 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
An investigatory stop of a vehicle is valid if an officer has “specific and articulable facts establishing reaso nable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.” ( quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
t he supreme court explained that, “[w]hen an officer observes a vehicle being driven, it is rational for him or her to infer that the owner of the vehicle is the current operator.” Pike, d at 922.
William Eduardo Fajardo, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683, 5 1687 (2014) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)); -68 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harvey McGee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harvey McGee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An investigatory stop of a vehicle is valid if an officer has “specific and articulable facts establishing reasonable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Cox 807 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cox 807 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See, -67 (Minn.1981) (upholding an automobile stop based on the officer’s one-month-earlier observation that the driver had a suspended license).
State v. Johnson 645 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 645 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(holding police officer may make investigatory stop of motor vehicle if officer has specific and articulable facts establishing reasonable suspicion of motor vehicle violation or criminal activity ()).
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
A police officer may make an investigatory stop of a motor vehicle if the officer has “‘specific and articulable facts’ establishing ‘reasonable suspicion’ of a motor vehicle violation or criminal activity.” State *71 v. Duesterkoeft, (citation omitted).
State v. Pike 551 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1996
State v. Pike 551 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1996
an officer stopped a truck based on the knowledge that a month prior to the stop, the owner of the truck had a suspended license.
State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Pike 543 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(stop lawful when officer believed defendant’s license still under revocation and reasonably suspected defendant was person *99 driving vehicle); City of St.
City of West St. Paul v. Smith 404 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
City of West St. Paul v. Smith 404 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Also, on remand we direct the trial court’s and its applicability under the facts as they are found upon rehearing.
State v. Wallace 330 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1983
State v. Wallace 330 N.W.2d 458 Minn. 1983