Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of M.D.R., 693 N.W.2d 444.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Evaluating the constitutionality of a pat-down search, we ask “whether a reasonably prudent person in the specific circumstances would believe that his or her safety was in danger.” rev. 6 denied (Minn. June 28, 2005) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(quotations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In conducting this limited search, the officer must reasonably believe “that such a search is necessary to protect the 9 officer’s safety or the safety of others.” rev. denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 444, 448 (Minn. App. 2005) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4 the stop was not “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Deundrick Demon McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deundrick Demon McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Whether the police have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop depends on the totality of the circumstances and a showing that the stop was not “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–49 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
Del Roy Lloyd Wendt, III v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Del Roy Lloyd Wendt, III v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To determine whether an officer has a reasonable suspicion, we look at the totality of the circumstances and must ensure that the stop is not “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Whether the police have reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances and a showing that an investigative seizure was not “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Whether police have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop depends on the totality of the circumstances, and a stop is not justified if it is “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Whether the police have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative seizure depends on the totality of the circumstances, and a showing that the seizure was not “the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. June 28, 2005).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by