Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Gauster, 752 N.W.2d 496.

426 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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Kyle Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that dismissal of charges following suppression of evidence meets critical-impact requirement).
State of Minnesota v. Marcellus Anthony Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Adam Michael Deutsch Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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. Rahma Abukar Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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 6 de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Raymond Boy Strong Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Rory Lee Sisco Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Albert Joe Ryans, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Maryam Yusuf Ahmed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(stating that the dismissal of charges following suppression of evidence meets the critical-impact requirement).
State of Minnesota v. Troy Ray Gibson Minn. Ct. App. 2026
Gayles, d at 10 (citing Lugo, d at 483; ).
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Keith Parmenter Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mya Oo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Mya Oo Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“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. Michael Daron Ware Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Edward Louis Johnson, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
1 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.” 1 Johnson does not raise his Fourth Amendment challenge in this appeal.
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. Sterling William Stennis Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454–55 (1971).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Rayshon Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Rayshon Mays Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Stephen Schaefer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Paul Stephen Schaefer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(noting that reasonable suspicion is a legal question reviewed de novo).
State of Minnesota v. Jacquelin Carreno Minn. Ct. App. 2025
DECISION “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. Myon Demarlo Burrell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Reed Sullivan Klatt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Motion to suppress “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. Soloman Hosea Tomas Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. Jeremy Douglas Brandt Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. Derrick Laton Ponder Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(discussing when inventory searches are constitutional).
State of Minnesota v. Roland Ybarra Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7 need be suppressed.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devonte Rayon Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Kuichtoch Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“We 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. Antoine Kenneth James Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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. Lawrence Edward Walker McDowell Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The scope of the search is “defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe the object may be found.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Stuckey Minn. Ct. App. 2025
A warrantless search is “per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Benjamin Hulne Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. George Kenyata Muumbo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. Chad Menford Brehmer Minn. Ct. App. 2025
In reviewing the pretrial order denying Brehmer’s motion to suppress, 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 , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Karl Evald Auleciems Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. Phillip Eugene Turner Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Luther Boris Cousette Minn. Ct. App. 2025
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. Brandon Adam Potter Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. Justin Nicholas Boggs Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Adam Eldon Switala Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lorenzo Dee Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“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. 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. Rashard Dujuan Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Xavier Isaac Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“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).