Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Alesso, 328 N.W.2d 685.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(holding that the observation of a single open-bottle violation justified searching anywhere in the car where there may be another open bottle).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
688 (Minn. 1982) (stating that a police officer “could have searched the car for other evidence relating to the open-bottle violation” after observing the driver and passenger of a car drinking from cups that the police officer belie ved contained alcohol); -36 (Minn. App
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
688 (Minn. 1982) (stating that a police officer “could have searched the car for other evidence relating to the open-bottle violation” after observing the driver and passenger of a car drinking from cups that the police officer believed contained alcohol)
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
–89 (Minn. 1982) (holding that an officer was justified in conducting a protective search of a defendant in a vehicle because the officer “noticed that [the] defendant was either trying to conceal or remove an object of some sort from his right pocket,” which was “a furtive movement” that the Minnesota Suprem
State of Minnesota v. Paul Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Paul Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(Minn. 2 We note that, in his brief, Xiong attempts to challenge the district court’s ruling that his seizure and detention were lawful.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Trooper Otterson was justified in opening the door because the scope of a n investigatory seizure may include a limited search for weapons for the purpose of ensuring officer safety, see Askerooth, d at 370-71; State v. Alesso , , and an officer ma y ask a person to step out of a vehicle to allow such a search, see State v. Ortega , , 152 (Minn. 2009); State v. Krenik , , 184 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
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
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S. Ct. at 1883; State v. Alesso , ( concluding that officer was justified in searching suspect who “made a furtive movement of his hand toward [his] pocket, causing the officer to suspect that he might be reaching for a weapon ”).
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Furthermore, a law-enforcement officer does not necessarily seize a person inside a parked vehicle by shining a squad car’s spotlight on the exterior of the stopped vehicle, Illi, d at 152-53, or by shining a flashlight into the interior of the vehicle if the officer is lawfully in that particular vantage point, Vohnoutka, d at 757
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that an officer reasonably could reach into defendant’s pocket where “defendant made a furtive movement of his hand toward the pocket, causing the officer to suspect that he might be reaching for a weapon”); (holding that an office
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
1921, 1924 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972) (reasonable for police officers to reach into suspect’s waistband when suspect did not *252 comply and officer reasonably believed weapon was hidden in waistband); (police officer’s reach into defendant’s pocket justified when “defendant made a furtive movement of his hand toward the pocket, causing the officer to suspect that he might be reaching for a weapon”).
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Lembke 509 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lembke 509 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
See, , 689 n. 4 (Minn.1982) (under objective theory of probable cause, deficiency in officer’s testimony does not invalidate search).
State v. Hanson 501 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Hanson 501 N.W.2d 677 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
To support its position that there was no unlawful seizure here
State v. Crook 485 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Crook 485 N.W.2d 726 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 486 , 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(c) at 524 (2d ed. 1987).
State v. Dickerson 469 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dickerson 469 N.W.2d 462 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
In a typical pat-down frisk, only certain “tactile sensations produced by the pat-down will justify a further intrusion into the clothing” to seize the object and the “better view” is that “a search is not permissible when the object felt is soft in nature.” (quoting 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 9.4(c) at 130 (1978)); e.g., State v. Bitterman, 304 Minn. 481, 486 , (seizure of prescription bottle, which was a hard object that, when felt through the clothes, the officer thought might be a we
State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Hart 412 N.W.2d 797 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
In addition, respondent’s act of covering his right pocket to prevent a search, when he observed Pyka’s moving in that direction
State v. Combs 398 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1987
State v. Combs 398 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1987
a police officer at the State Fair saw two young men in an illegally parked ear outside the Grandstand ramp late at night.
State v. McKenzie 392 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. McKenzie 392 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
Schinzing, d at 109 ; d *415 900 (Minn.1981).