Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Jordan, 742 N.W.2d 149.

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Michael John Feehan Minn. Ct. App. 2026
6 “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
Nicholas Raymond Zandstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The district court explained that, “[b]ecause there is no caselaw that directly addresses the issue of whether a violation of section 626.14 warrants rescission under section 171.177,” it was “apply[ing] principles of criminal law to determine whether rescission is warranted.” which considered whether a violation of section 626.14 required suppression of evidence in a criminal proceeding, and reasoned that, although the blood draw was in violation of section 626.14, suppression of the resulting
State of Minnesota v. Jotee Marga Camadaa Minn. Ct. App. 2026
DECISION “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Steven Masog Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“To have a protected privacy interest, an individual must have a subjective expectation of privacy, and the subjective expectation must be reasonable, i.e., one that is recognized by society.” () (other citations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2010); see also id.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Ray Shellito Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Edin Gaspar Cruz Flores AKA Marcelino Rivera Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Edin Gaspar Cruz Flores AKA Marcelino Rivera Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Jacob James Simons Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Dwayne Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Dwayne Copeland Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Segura-Arroyo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Antonio Segura-Arroyo Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When reviewing a district court’s pretrial suppression order, appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Tyrone Deshawn Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Amber Klevgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” (quoting State v. Jordan , ).
State of Minnesota v. Kenyatta Devine Buckles Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Angelo Casarez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
DECISION “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian Andy Simon Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484 (1963)
State of Minnesota v. Travis Franklin Juno Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court ’s legal determinations de novo.’” 5 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Warren Earl Barry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” 5 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Floyd Joseph Moen Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Similarly, law-enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a home at 6:00 a.m., again in mid-December, "during the period defined by statute as being nighttime."
Respondent, vs. Minn. 2021
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a mo tion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Bond Troyer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
On appeal of a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews “the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and 6 the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Francis Christopher Soucie v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A20-0302), and State of Minnesota (A20-0912), vs. Francis Christopher Soucie Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brian Allen Platt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Joseph Haman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Michael Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
rant, found child 7 pornography in plain view, a nd acted reasonably when they secured an amended warrant before searching Kramer’s apartment.1 When reviewing a district court’s pret rial order denying a motion to suppress evidence, “we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s lega l determinations de novo.” State v. Jordan
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Richard Fenske Minn. Ct. App. 2020
5 D E C I S I O N I. District court’s denial of appellant’s motion to suppress “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” State v. Gauster , 502 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Natalie Rae Skaudis Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Derek William Jung Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When reviewing a district court’s 9 pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Travis Darnell Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneo us standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” State v. Gauster , (quoting State v. Jordan , ).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Dennis Carstensen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Scott Lawrance Ziegler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
7 “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidenc e, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’ s legal determinations de novo.” State v. Jordan
State of Minnesota v. Scott Erwin Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. David James Fineday Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we evaluate “the distri ct court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s leg al determinations de novo.”
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Jackson , d at 167 -69 , 174 ; State v. Jordan , , 153-54 (Minn. 2007).
State of Minnesota v. Sedrick Lamar Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
e implied consent procedure; and (3) the district court made erroneous factual findings.1 “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we r eview the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Cole Earl Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’ ” ().
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy James McNitt Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” 4 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the 4 district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Brandon Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Brandon Cochran Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”