DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Burbach, 706 N.W.2d 484.

178 citing documents.

  • Teric Alan Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “We undertake a de novo review to determine whether a search or seizure is justified by reasonable suspicion or by probable cause.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
    (citing State v. Lee, 585 NW.2d 378, 382-83 (Minn.1998)).
  • State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    as support and argues that “in Burbaeh , the generalized odor of alcohol did not create a particularized suspicion to seize the driver and vehicle, where the driver and passenger were of legal drinking age, and the passenger said he had been drinking.” In Burbaeh , an officer “detected a strong odor
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
  • State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
    457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) (“We hold that the issue whether a suspect is ‘in custody,’ and therefore entitled to Miranda warnings, presents a mixed question of law and fact qualifying for independent review.”); (holding that de novo review applies “to determine whether a search or seizure is justified by reasonable suspicion or by probable cause” and clear-error review applies to the factual determinations underlying those legal conclusions); see also, e.g., Lilly, 527 U.S. at 136 , 119 S.Ct.
  • State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Wiltgen 737 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Wiltgen 737 N.W.2d 561 Minn. 2007
    487 n. 1 (Minn.2005) (noting that where suppression of evidence led to the dismissal of all of the criminal charges critical impact was established).
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ ” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.