Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jackson, 742 N.W.2d 163.

125 citing documents.

State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-78 (Minn. 2007) (stating “evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed”).
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
In other words, they allowed essentially “unlimited discretion regarding when and where to conduct a search.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome O�Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jerome O�Brien Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.” d 163, 177-78 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Nicole Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Nicole Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-78 (Minn. 2007) (suppressing evidence obtained during an unconstitutional nighttime search).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
7 “To be reasonable, the basis of the officer’s suspicion must satisfy an objective, totality-of-the-circumstances test.” Smith, d at 351; (“An individual officer’s subjective state of mind is not the relevant consideration.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-78 (Minn. 2007) (suppressing evidence obtained during an unconstitutional nighttime search).
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The statute “specifically aims to prevent police intrusion into the personal and private activities of individuals in their homes at night unless the police articulate facts sufficient to support their intrusion.” d 163, 173 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.” –78 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Iri Armando Ruiz-Deleon Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
178, 180 (Minn. 2007) (distinguishing the unannounced search in Hudson from the invalid nighttime search in Jackson and declining to address as unnecessary an argument that Minnesota should reject Hudson on state constitutional grounds).
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota has not adopted a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.4 review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998); n.10 (Minn. 2007) (commenting that Minnesota has “consistently declined to adopt, much less even address, the .
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Mobley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tavaires Higgins Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lamar Mobley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that de novo review applies to reasonable-suspicion determination).
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
evidence in this case are essentially zero”); -84 (Minn.2007) (Anderson, G. Barry, J., dissenting) (“[Tjhere is rarely a significant deterrent effect when an officer acts in good faith within the scope of a warrant....
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Emmanuel Gordon Anim Minn. Ct. App. 2015
s the court determines that a nighttime search “is necessary to prevent the loss, destruction, or removal of the objects of the search or to protect the searchers or the public.” “[A]n application for a nighttime warrant under section 626.14 must establish reasonable suspicion that a nighttime search is necessary to preserve evidence or to protect officer or public safety.” -68 (Minn. 2007).
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 163, 177-78 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the [C]onstitution must be suppressed.” –78 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- 78 (Minn. 2007) (“Generally, evidence seized in violation of the constitution must be suppressed.”).
State of Minnesota v. George Kimuhu Gatungu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Kimuhu Gatungu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dean James Roehler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-78 (Minn. 2007) (suppressing evidence obtained during an unconstitutional nighttime search).