Cited by

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

228 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Finally, the sergeant observed multiple people in the stopped vehicle, and “officer safety concerns increase when there is a passenger in a stopped vehicle[,] as both the passenger and the driver may have similar motivations to 8 prevent the discovery of crime in the vehicle by use of violence.”
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. Zacarias Lopez Sarmiento Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zacarias Lopez Sarmiento Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Charles Norton Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“A person may constructively possess contraband jointly with another person.”
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A search incident to arrest is justified “when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found,” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 333 (2009) (quotation omitted), and allows officers to search a person’s body and the area within his or her immediate control
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that an appellate court reviews legal determinations de novo).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Malik Galtney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Travis Malik Galtney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Courts must “balance the government’s need to search or seize a vehicle’s occupants against the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
“Warrantless searches are generally unreasonable unless they fall within a recognized warrant exception.”
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
“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.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (plurality opinion)
State v. Sterling 782 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Sterling 782 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
147 n. 1, 149 (Minn.2009).
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
n *184 opinion released after this court heard oral arguments in this matter, the Minnesota Supreme Court cited Wilson and determined that the officer who lawfully stopped the vehicle in which Ortega was a passenger “was justified in having Ortega leave the vehicle as the vehicle was already stopped and the only change was that Ortega was outside, instead of inside, the vehicle.”