Cited by

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

426 citing documents.

Respondent, vs. Minn. 2021
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a mo tion 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. Isaiah Kerry Toussaint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“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 determination s de novo.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Gage Carr Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008) (quota tion omitted) (“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.”); Harris, d at 98 (“Specifically, when th e
State of Minnesota v. Kashka Kenya Shannon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Dupree Jamison Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brian Allen Platt Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Dillon Farkon Howard, Jr Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. William Arnold Lindeman Minn. Ct. App. 2021
onclusion that the discovery of the black plastic bag and blanket-covered cooler was permissible because it took place in an “open field.” When reviewing a district court’s pretri al order on a motion to suppress evidence, this court reviews “the district court’s fact ual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Brenden Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brandon Michael Kramer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Appellate courts independently review facts that are not in dispute, and determine, “as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quoting State v. Othoudt , ).
State of Minnesota v. Mark Terrance Ross Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s 6 factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Elliott Skinaway, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Alan Herold Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Lashaun Manuel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Luis Gerardo Gonzalez-Perez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Derek William Jung Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Lysa Kaye Conner Minn. Ct. App. 2020
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 un der a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal dete rminations de novo.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Darnell Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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 erroneo us standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” State v. Gauster , (quoting State v. Jordan , ).
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Robert Nehring Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jared Michael Desroches, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kathleen Margaret Eileen Ochs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Generally, warran tless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Irwin James Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster
State of Minnesota v. Tyree Earl Chapman Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Adrian Walz Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Juan Carlos Garcia-Morales Minn. Ct. App. 2020
4 “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 nov o.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted ).
State of Minnesota v. Gerardo Cory Lopez Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Lopez asserts that a person can never be arrested for failing to have a valid driver’s license based on a footnote from State v. Gauster: “[L]ack of a driver’s license, by itself, is not a reasonable basis for subjecting the driver to a custodial arrest for a minor traffic offense.” n.3 (Minn. 200 8) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. David Joshua John Skotte Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, inventory searches are “a well- defined exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Gauster , (quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987)).
State of Minnesota v. Randall Scott Seelye Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. William Dumont White Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Keith Ward Hohlen Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“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. Linton Ludlow Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jennifer Tasha Stiel Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Rousu Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster , .
State of Minnesota v. Matthew William Vos Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Timothy James Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jesse William Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Yia Her v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Ihrke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Kirk Patrick Kalkbrenner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joshua John Leary v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Todd Alexander Gunther Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jarvis Michael Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Erik Heiderscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Jon Mugge Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, vs Zachariah Daniel Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
-09 (Minn. 2008) (holding that the state could not raise the automobile exception to the warrant requirement because the issue was not raised at the district court, the record was insufficiently developed on relevant facts, and the district court made no findings of fact on that issue).
State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g. , Fellers v. United States , 540 U.S. 519 , 521, 124 S. Ct. 1019 , 1021, 157 L.Ed.2d 1016 (2004) ; State v. Gauster , , 501 (Minn. 2008) ; State v. Ihle , , 913 (Minn. 2002).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Paul Mattson 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 det erminations de novo.” (quotation omitted).