Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McGrath, 706 N.W.2d 532.

82 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that information was not stale because facts suggesting ongoing criminal activity were obtained within three weeks of warrant application); cf. Souto, 578 d at 750-51 (concluding that information was stale six to ten months after occurrence of events described in warrant appli
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In other words, when a “search-warrant application is clear and unambiguous, ” appellate courts “do not look beyond the four corners of the document.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-45 (Minn. App. 2005) (deciding that the presence of marijuana in three curbside garbage searches over the three weeks preceding the warrant application was evidence of ongoing criminal activity sufficient to establish probable cause that contraband would be found in the residence), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See, e.g. , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
See Zanter, d at 633; rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State v. 9 McGrath, rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
5 We also note that “the test is not whether the residual amounts of marijuana are criminal” but “whether those amounts support a reasonable expectation that more marijuana or other evidence of criminal activity will be found.” rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
to support a finding of probable cause .” aff’d, ( “[T]he test is not whether the residual amounts of marijuana are criminal.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(explaining that courts “recognize[] that each informer is different and that all of the stated facts relating to the informer should be considered in making a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis”); d 532, 540- 42 (Minn. App. 2005) (distinguishing between confidential informants a nd concerned citizens) , rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Ross , -42 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(explaining that courts “recognize[] that each informer is different and that all of the stated facts relating to the informer should be considered in making a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis”); (distinguishing concerned citizens from other types of informants), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
-40 (Minn. App. 2005), rev. denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-40 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The concept of staleness requires that the search -warrant affidavit “supply proof of facts so closely related in time to the issuance of a search warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at the time.” State v. McGrath , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
6 (recognizing that a concerned citizen “acts with an intent to aid law enforcement out of concern for society or for personal safety” and is generally reliable), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 532, 543-44 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
And 6 “[c]ontraband seized from a garbage search can provide an independent and substantial basis for a probable-cause determination.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This court has stated that “[c]ontraband seized from a 12 garbage search can provide an independent and substantial basis for a probable -cause determination.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Our review of a pretrial suppression order is limited to whether “the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause, we do not engage in a de novo review.” State v. McGrath , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. McGrath , (stating that last garbage search occurred one day before the search-warrant application and two days before it was executed, rendering t he evidence from the garbage searches not stale), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
539 (Minn. App. 2005) , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Feb.
A17-1623 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. McGrath , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But the existence of probable cause depends on the totality of the circumstances, , and includes circumstances that are individually innocent or noncriminal, d 532, 543 (Minn. App. 2005).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Likewise, this cour t may determine a search warra nt is void and suppress the fruits of the search if “it is demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant knowingly or with reckless disregard for th e truth included a false statement in the affidavit.” State v. McGrath , review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause, we do not engage in a de novo review.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
In re: Application for an Order for Inspection of David Berglund and Lake View Natural Dairy, 140 County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re: Application for an Order for Inspection of David Berglund and Lake View Natural Dairy, 140 County … Minn. Ct. App. 2017
v. McGrath, review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Dennis James McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis James McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 532, 540 (Minn. App. 2005), review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Contraband seized from a garbage search can provide an independent and substantial basis for a probable-cause determination.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Clyde Griffin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When determining whether a search warrant is supported by probable cause, we do not engage in a de novo review.” review denied (Minn. Feb.
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Rurup Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Contraband seized from a garbage search can provide an independent and substantial basis for a probable-cause determination.” review denied (Minn. Feb.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by