Cited by

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

230 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ronald Jay Bolkema Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Scott Lawrance Ziegler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Because appella nt stipulated to the prosecution’s evidence pursuant to rule 26.01, subdivision 4, “our review is further limited to the pretrial order that denied [appellant’s] motion to suppress.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Ortega , ; State v. Robb , 6 ; (stating that brief handcuffing does not necessarily constitute an arrest).
State of Minnesota v. Adrian Thomas Howell Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Ortega , n.1, 149 (Minn. 2009) 9 Not every incriminating response to police questioning is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
State v. Marsh 931 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Marsh 931 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Ortega , , 149 (Minn. 2009) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cornelius Palmer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Edward Britton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
1 (2016) (stating that a t raffic violation is generally a petty misdemeanor); (“The crime for which probab l e c a u s e [ t o arrest] exists must be one for which a custodial arrest is auth orized.”); Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Karl Berzins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Jon Unsworth Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009) .
State of Minnesota v. Paige Jean Lofberg Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Ardana Jo Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Mario Dewayne Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Laurel Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeremia Michael Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 145, 149 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Alarcon, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(discussing that “mere proximity to criminal activity” is insufficient to establish probable cause for contraband possession).
State of Minnesota v. Casimir Robert Krithers Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Igor Pavlovich Albantov Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Steven Kottom Minn. Ct. App. 2018
4 D E C I S I O N 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 defer to the district court’s credibility determinations
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Darrell Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Cameron Faheem Bonds Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Ortega , , 149 (Minn. 2009).
State of Minnesota v. George Earl Heinrich Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Joseph Clement, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing a district court’ s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence when the facts are undisputed, we determine, “as a matter of law, wh ether the evidence need be suppressed.” 4 () (applying de novo review of pretrial order pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Ezel Scott Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In addition, a person may also “constructively possess contraband jointl y with another person.” State v. Ortega
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating “[a] person may constructivel y possess contraband jointly with another person”); Florine, 303 Minn. at 105, d at 611 (discussing exclusive control).
State of Minnesota v. Michael John Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Molnau 904 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2017
State v. Molnau 904 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Paul Alan Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A law enforcement officer may order a passenger to get out of a lawfully stopped vehicle despite having no individualized basis to do so, without offending either the United States or the Minnesota Constitution s. Maryland v. Wilson , 519 U.S. 408, 414 15, 117 S. Ct. 882, 886 (1997); State v. Ortega , State v. Krenik , review denied (Minn. Jan.
State of Minnesota v. Chue Feng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Overruled State of Minnesota v. Christopher Blane Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
While the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed this court’s decision in Ortega I in State v. Ortega (Ortega II), d 145, 151-52 (Minn. 2009), it did so on very different grounds.
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Eugene Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Warrantless searches are generally unreasona ble unless they fall w ithin a recognized warrant exception.”
State v. Dotson 900 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Dotson 900 N.W.2d 445 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2010) () (undertaking de novo review of pretrial order pursuant to Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Luis Antonio Pimentel Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Pimentel challenges the district court’s reasoning by citing State v. Ortega , for the proposition that the officers must have probable cause that he in particular was engaged in criminal activity.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Kalberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
icle then the search was justified under the automobile exception); see also State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (observing a search was justified after two officers detected the odor of marijuana); (stating that the odor of marijuana has historically provided an officer with probable cause to search), aff’d, (“It ha s long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evid
State of Minnesota v. Corie Demetrius Bass Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Solon LaBatte Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Scotty Nicolas Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (upholding car search under automobile exception based on marijuana odor ); State v. Ortega , (same), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Craig Edward Dauffenbach Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dillen James Hinkemeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dillen James Hinkemeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see also Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 414-15, 117 S. Ct. 882, 886 (1997).
State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by