Cited by

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

426 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We may, however, address an issue for the first time on appeal if “the issue will not work an unfair surprise on a party” and the record “permits us to address such an issue.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Swanson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Imagine Tera Sade Majors Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Jeron Garding Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“[E]vidence 7 “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. Shoulwin Melbrook Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Adam Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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. Marcus Jacoby Moore Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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. Micheal Anthony Sparks Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Allen Schell Minn. Ct. App. 2023
6 A warrantless search is “per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Gabriel Hernandez Silva Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Lamont Shauntel Thomas, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2023
9 “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. Paul Casey Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2023
I. Decision Denying Mason’s Motion to Suppress We review for clear error the district court’s factual findings underlying a decision whether to suppress evidence, State v. Gauster , and we review de novo whether a n investigative detention or pat-down search is justified by reasonable suspicion, .
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Amber Klevgaard Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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.’” (quoting State v. Jordan , ).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kenyatta Devine Buckles Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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 A.M. Rodriguez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Angelo Casarez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
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. Matthew Jay Keniston Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kayli Anne Feekes-Benedict Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Kami Lynn Ohm v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“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. Eric John Peterson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008) .
State of Minnesota v. Robert John Virnig Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Wayne LaPointe Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Gomez Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Further, the scope of a search under the automobile exception is “defined by the object of the search” and limited to “the places in which there is probable cause to believe [the object] may be found.” (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Khyan Anwau Whitley Minn. Ct. App. 2023
to be within the curtilage of a home.” (cataloguing cases that hold that the driveway and backyard are curtilage in 3 “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. Clinton Daniel Mattingly Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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. James Paul Aery Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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).
Henry James Johnson, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. 4 Gauster
State of Minnesota v. Travis Franklin Juno Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.’” 5 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Walter Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
In considering the denial of a suppression motion, “we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted); see Diede, d at 843 (“The de novo review standard controls our review of the district court’s determination that its factual findings support a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying the police officer’s search or seizure.”).
State of Minnesota v. Darcy Wayne Christianson Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Further, the scope of a search under the automobile exception is “defined by the object of the search” and limited to “the places in which there is p robable cause to believe [the object] may be found.” (quoting United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 824 (1982)).
State of Minnesota v. Nancy Jean Feltus Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Mae Coleman Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Raphael Ulisses Gurneau Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Orlando Omar Castillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
from the center console.” But he argues that “the further search of the car, particularly the search of the bag where the shotgun was found, exceeded the scope of the probable cause.” “The scope of a warrantless search under the automobile exception is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe the object may be found.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Julie Marie Schneider Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Ann Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State v. Gauster , d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Jane King Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Mandy Marie Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Warren Earl Barry Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“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.’” 5 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Spencer Robert Stiller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Charles Bracy Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Mark Bradley Zontelli Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Gregory James Head Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Larry Eugene Burrell, Jr. Appellant Minn. Ct. App. 2021
I. Motion to Suppress A. Multiple-Occupancy Residence “When reviewing a district court’s pretri al order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual finding s under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Koulton Ugene Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Robert Herman Larsen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
While warrantless searches ar e generally unreasonable, State v. Gauster , an officer may conduct a warrantless limited investigatory stop when the officer has reasonable artic ulable suspicion of criminal activity.