Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bourke, 718 N.W.2d 922.

132 citing documents.

Paul Robert Mix v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The reasonable, articulable suspicio n standard is “not high.” State v. Bourke , (quotation omitted); Magnuson v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Corie Demetrius Bass Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While the reasonable, artic ulable suspicion sta ndard is “not high,” State v. Bourke , (q uotation omitted), it “requires at least a minimal level of objective justification” for the stop, Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 123, 120 S. Ct. at 676.
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 922, 927 (Minn. 2006).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965)); (“[W]e give ‘great deference to the issuing judge’s determination’ of probable cause for a search warrant.” ()); Rochefort, d at 804 (same); (“[T]he resolution, of doubtful or marginal cases s
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The reasonable suspicion standard is “not high.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deundrick Demon McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deundrick Demon McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Dupree Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and, on review, we give great deference to the district court’s credibility determinations.
A15-1606 Christopher R. Coker (A15-1439, A15-1445) (A15-1606) v. Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services (A15-1439) (A15-1606), Hennepin … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A15-1606 Christopher R. Coker (A15-1439, A15-1445) (A15-1606) v. Emily Johnson Piper, Commissioner of Human Services (A15-1439) (A15-1606), Hennepin … Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alan Early Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alan Early Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deon Sinkfield, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(d 90, 98 (Minn. 1999)).
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
some showing to the magistrate that the warrant can only be executed successfully in the nighttime.’’ (emphasis added) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 DECISION “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in its ruling.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Bakken 871 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court has held that courts should “avoid a constitutional ruling if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
791 n. 1 (Minn.1999); , 864 n. 4 (Minn.1991); , 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990); , 269 n. 2 (Minn.1985); , 929 n. 7 (Minn.2006) (resolving the issue on statutory grounds and declining to consider the good-faith exception articulated in Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 , 126 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(noting that “the reasonable suspicion showing is not high” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
For a nighttime search to be authorized under Minn. Stat. § 626.14, the search warrant application must “establish at least a reasonable suspicion 4 that a nighttime search is necessary to preserve evidence or to protect officer or public safety.”
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But it requires more than an unarticulated hunch; police must show “something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Larry Dusaun Gray Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Hester, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Albert Hester, III Minn. Ct. App. 2015
determination that there was a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found,” see Upton, 466 U.S. at 733, 104 S. Ct. at 2088 (quotation omitted), particularly in light of the “great deference [owed] to the issuing judge’s determination of probable cause for a search warrant,” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“We review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.”); (stating the standard for reviewing district court’s reasonable-suspicion
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter 857 N.W.2d 537 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
But the standard for reasonable suspicion is “not high,” requiring only “something more than an unarticulated hunch, that the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” d 922, 927 (Minn. 2006) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald William Carlson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
of whether a nighttime search warrant should be authorized under Minn. Stat. § 626.14.” –28 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).