Cited by

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

95 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. George Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Luis Rodolfo Rojas-Santos Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Laurel Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Laurel Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Joseph James Ossell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph James Ossell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 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. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Perry Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Zakaria Abdinasser Yusuf Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Logan Nicholas Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Logan Nicholas Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“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 5 district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael Darron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. John Alvin Lindquist Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. 5 Gauster, (
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
3 clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” (d 149, 152 (Minn. 2007)).
State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(); see also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 143-44 n. 12, 99 S.Ct.
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
State v. Buckingham 772 N.W.2d 64 Minn. 2009
When reviewing a district court’s ruling on a pretrial 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.” () (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
I. 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. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Appellant argues that he had a subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence simply because he is the owner, -56 (Minn.2007) (concluding that a homeowner has a reasonable expectation “that his person, house, papers, and effects would be secure against an unauthorized nighttime search and seizure”).
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
*502 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. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007