Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Flowers, 734 N.W.2d 239.

287 citing documents.

Landon Ricky Olesiak v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Malik Galtney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Scott David Silver v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Malik Galtney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Under this exception, police may conduct a warrantless search “[w]hen probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband.”
State of Minnesota v. Dontrell Dyna Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-80 (1968); (stating that Terry applies to investigative vehicle stops and allows a limited search of a vehicle for weapons based on reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal activity and may gain control of a weapon).
Scott David Silver v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Alex Michael Bistodeau v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arturo James Ortega v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Arturo James Ortega v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Alex Michael Bistodeau v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Scott Marshall Karo v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jack Eugene Christiansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jack Eugene Christiansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007).
Scott Marshall Karo v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nicolas Wilcox Hult v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Paul Scheiterlein v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Paul Scheiterlein v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Nicolas Wilcox Hult v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 239, 248 (Minn. 2007) (“[T]he search is unreasonable unless the state proves that the search fell within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.”).
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A Ten~y stop permits an officer who suspects that an individual is engaged in illegal activity and also believes that a suspect may be armed and dangerous to frisk the subject in order to reduce concerns that the suspect poses a danger to officer safety.” -51 (Minn.2007).
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
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
Further, we have said that “by virtue of the special training they receive, police officers articulating a reasonable suspicion may make inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.” -52 (Minn.2007) (citing Askerooth, d at 369 ).
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
II Where the facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a district court’s pretrial order on motions to suppress evidence de novo and determine “whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” -48 (Minn.2007).
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
When facts are not in dispute, as here, we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and “determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” -48 (Minn.2007).
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
Under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “[w]hen probable cause exists to believe that a vehicle contains contraband, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to search the vehicle without a warrant.” (citing Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 467 , 119 S.Ct.
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
When we review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress where the facts are not in dispute, as here, we review the decision de novo and “determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” -48 (Minn.2007).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by