Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Ortega, 770 N.W.2d 145.

230 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Clyde Lee Reyes, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Wokeph Natee Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Pao Choua Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443, 474 (1971)
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Anthony Falk Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443, 454-55, 474 (1971)
State of Minnesota v. Ramiro Cruz-Pineda Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Frank Joseph Tregoning Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Adam Lloyd Torgerson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Cf. State v. Ortega , - 54 (Minn. 2009) (holding that officer had probable cause to search vehicle based on defendant’s nervous and evasive conduct and because defendant handed officer a small amount of marijuana) , aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Tamarr Brayon Long Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474 (1971)
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Earl Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454- 55 (1971)
State of Minnesota v. Renaldo Valentino Sept Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Todd Richard Kalis Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Michael Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2022
4 “allows a criminal defendant to plead not guilty; waive all trial-related rights, including his or her right to a jury trial; stipulate to the state’s evidence in a trial to the court; and then appeal a dispositive pretrial ruling”); (stating that when a defendant stipulates to the state’s e vidence under what is now rule 26.01, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Joshua John Keil Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Kayla Catelyn Waltz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 474 (1971)
State of Minnesota v. Alexander James Butcher Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Jaren Joseph Dodds Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Minn. 2021
Under Askerooth, to “search or seize, there must be an individualized, articulable, and reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.”
State of Minnesota v. Demarco Dante Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Emilio Nieto Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eric Walbridge Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Raphael Phares Spencer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Terrvante Rennicko Hicks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A person may constructively possess contraband jointl y with another person.” State v. 10 Ortega
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. A. Y., Jr., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Dewayne Romel Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Luis Omar Chaparro Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Edward Nixon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. James Paul Aery Minn. Ct. App. 2020
-50 (Minn. 2009) (citing State v. Robb , ).
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Patrick Sims Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Larry Francis Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Probable cause to arrest exists when the objective facts are such that “a person of ordinary care and prudence, viewing the totality of the circumstances objectively, would entertain an honest and stro ng suspicion that a specific individual has committed a crime.” State v. Ortega , (emphasis omitted); -95 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Bert Melby, III Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Lashaun Manuel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Pennsylvania v. Mimms , 434 U.S. 106, 109-12, 98 S. Ct. 330 , 332-34 (1977)
State of Minnesota v. Derek William Jung Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellate courts “may independently review facts that are not in dispute and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Frankie Dylan Dircks Minn. Ct. App. 2020
6 When reviewing a suppression order, we examine the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and defer to the district court’s credibility determinations, State v. Dickerson
State of Minnesota v. Christian John Donnelly Minn. Ct. App. 2020
n.2 (Minn. 2009), which clarified that the odor of marijuana is insufficient to justify a search incident to arrest unless the trooper can discern from the odor that the person possesses a criminal amount of marijuana, does not apply to the motor-vehicle exception to the search -warrant requirement.
State of Minnesota v. Irwin James Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Adam Burstad Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. David Joshua John Skotte Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4, appellate “rev iew is further limited to the pretrial order that denied [the appellant]’s motion to suppress.”
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jose Salud Botello Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
pening the door because the scope of a n investigatory seizure may include a limited search for weapons for the purpose of ensuring officer safety, see Askerooth, d at 370-71; State v. Alesso , , and an officer ma y ask a person to step out of a vehicle to allow such a search, see State v. Ortega , , 152 (Minn. 2009); State v. Krenik , , 184 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Jose Eduardo Medina Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“A person may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.” State v. Ortega
State of Minnesota v. Alberto Fuentes Cruz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Timothy James Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jesse William Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Thomas Randal Schreyer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Archie Leon Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Troy Michael Wierson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“A person may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.”).
Christopher London Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019