Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173.

185 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high, but the suspicion must be more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion,” Timberlake, d at 393 (quotation omitted), and “something more than an unarticulated hunch,” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)).
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. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alec Haefs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alec Haefs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The Minnesota Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable government intrusions upon areas where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy.”
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellate courts “presume that tips from private citizen informants are reliable.” see also 6 (“A first-time citizen informant who has not been involved in the criminal underworld is presumed to be reliable.
State of Minnesota v. Corey Joel Eichers 853 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Corey Joel Eichers 853 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Tips from private citizens are presumed reliable, especially when informants “give information about their identity so that the police can locate them if necessary.”
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
because a reasonable 9 expectation of privacy in the hallway does not exist.” aff’d, n.5, 179 n.10 (Minn. 2007) (affirming on other grounds without considering whether the dog sniff was a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and noting that Davis made no argument that the police intruded upon the curtilage of his home).
State of Minnesota v. Damian Mata Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Damian Mata Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
175-76 & n. 5 (Minn.2007) (holding that narcotics dog sniff of common hallway outside defendant’s apartment was a search that required reasonable, articulable suspicion under Minn. Const, art. I, § 10); (holding that narcotics dog sniff outside self-storage unit w
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
Reasonable suspicion “must be ‘particularized’ ” and based on “ ‘specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.’ ” (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Borg 806 N.W.2d 535 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
“Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Baumann 759 N.W.2d 237 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by