Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ruoho, 685 N.W.2d 451.

48 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
A nexus “may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances,” id., even without direct observation of criminal activity at the location, d 451, 456 (Minn. App. 2004), rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Chad William Buckley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Chad William Buckley Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When assessing whether such a nexus exists, we consider “the type of crime involved, the nature of the items sought, the extent of an opportunity for concealment, and reasonable assumptions about where a suspect would likely keep that evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[T]he nexus may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the type of crime involved, the nature of the items sought, the extent of an opportunity for concealment, and reasonable assumptions about where a suspect would likely keep that evidence.” rev. denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
When reviewing a district court’s decisi on regarding probable ca use, we consider whether the search warrant affidavit “viewed as a whole, provides a substantial basis for a finding of probable cause.” State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. Ruoho , d 451, 457 (Minn. App. 2004) (holding that observations of suspected drug trafficking three days prior warranted the search of a suspect’s residence), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
22, 2006); -74 (Minn. 1984) (comparing time -sensitive evidence of mere drug possession to more enduring evidence of ongoing drug sales); (reasoning that people who sell drugs likely would maintain evidence of the crime in their residence), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And the esse ntial question for this court’s review is “whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in believing that the items sought were located at the place to 5 be searched.” State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In determining whether a substantial basis exists, “the critical question is whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in believing that the items sought were located at the place to be searched.” State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he critical question is whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in belie ving that the items sought were located at the pl ace to be searched.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 451, 458 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
And the essential question is “whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable cautio n in believing that the items sought were located at the place to be searched.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]he critical question is whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in believing that the items sought were located at the place to be searched.” State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Among the circumstances considered are “the type of crime involved, the nature of the items sought, the extent of an opportunity for concealment, and reasonable assumptions about where a suspect would likely keep that evidence.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
8 “[T]he critical question is whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in believing th at the items sought were located at the pl ace to be searched.” State v. Ruoho , review denied (Minn. Nov.
A17-1623 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he critical question is whether the totality of facts and circumstances described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in believing th at the items sought were located at the pla ce to be searched.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Courts err on the side of issuing warrants in “doubtful or marginal” cases to avoid “discouraging police from seeking review by a neutral and detached magistrate.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he critical ques tion is whether the totality of facts and circumstances 4 described in the affidavit would justify a person of reasonable caution in believing that the items sought were located at the place to be searched.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tara Renaye Molnau Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Tara Renaye Molnau Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 DECISION “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, an appellate court may review the facts independently to determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing, or not suppressing, the evidence.” d 451, 458 (Minn. App. 2004), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
[including] the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the defendant’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the defendant would usually keep the items.”); (“Observations of a suspect’s drug trafficking that occurs at a place other than a suspect’s current residence can support probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant for the suspect’s residence.”), review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Steven Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Steven Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We consider “the type of crime involved, the nature of the items sought, the extent of an opportunity for concealment, and reasonable assumptions about where a suspect would likely keep that evidence.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Joseph Simonson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Joseph Simonson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Among the circumstances considered are “the type of crime involved, the nature of the items sought, the extent of an opportunity for concealment, and reasonable assumptions about where a suspect would likely keep that evidence.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To avoid discouraging police from seeking review by a neutral and detached magistrate, doubtful or marginal cases are resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To avoid discouraging police from seeking review by a neutral and detached magistrate, doubtful or marginal cases are resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State of Minnesota v. Vi Doan Huynh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vi Doan Huynh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“To avoid discouraging police from seeking review by a neutral and detached magistrate, doubtful or marginal cases are resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.”
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Janice Marie Cortes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION I. Before a lawful search warrant can be issued, “[a] warrant application must establish probable cause for the issuing court to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime will be found at the place to be searched (the so-called “nexus” requirement).” review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
review denied (Minn. Nov.
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. Nov.