Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Anderson, 683 N.W.2d 818.

201 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A limited investigatory stop of a motorist is permissible “if the state can show that the officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” -23 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Leonard Bowman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Leonard Bowman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Given the totality of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that Officer Steberg’s seizure of Bowman was not based on “mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity,” (quotation omitted), but was supported by “reasonable, articulable suspicion,” Timberlake, d at 393 (quotation omitted).
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An officer’s observation of a traffic violation, no matter how insignificant, generally “forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.”
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-23 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A traffic stop is permissible if “the officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” -23 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Erik Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Erik Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[T]he police must only show that the stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To justify an investigatory traffic stop, “the police must only show that the stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Wallace Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Wallace Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But a police officer may “conduct a limited investigatory stop of a motorist if the state can show that the officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” -23 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
An officer may “conduct a limited investigatory stop of a motorist if the state can show that the officer had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal 4 activity.” –23 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
7 More recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated explicitly that its decisions and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court “focus not on the subjective belief of the officer, but rather on the objective basis for the belief that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity.” -75 (Minn. 2004) (citing Whren and stating that “[i]n evaluating the reasonableness of a traffic stop, the subjective intent of the police officer is not a relevant consideration”); -83 (Minn. App. 2009) (citing
City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
City of Duluth v. 120 East Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
And “[g]enerally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.”
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. La�Rog Daquan Meadows Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, –23 (Minn. 2004) (stating general rule).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” (upholding stop where defendant was observed driving slowly and weaving within his lane); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204, 207, (upholding traffic stop based on officer’s observation that a vehicle’s license pl
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP 847 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re Reichmann Land & Cattle, LLP 847 N.W.2d 42 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” ().
Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC 834 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Van de Werken v. Bell & Howell, LLC 834 N.W.2d 220 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety 819 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety 819 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-24 (Minn.2004); -79 (Minn.1997).
State v. Wendorf 814 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wendorf 814 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(agreeing with the contention that the lawfulness of a stop “was not dependent on the officer’s subjective belief, but rather on the correctness of the officer’s conclusion that the defendant was violating the law”).
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Cisar v. Slyter 812 N.W.2d 151 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Dimke v. Farr 802 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Dimke v. Farr 802 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Prtine 799 N.W.2d 594 Minn. 2011