Cited by

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

425 citing documents.

A18-1103 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, 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 5 determinations de novo.” d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008 ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
James Willard Francisco, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Poehler 921 N.W.2d 577 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008).
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
See State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008) (discussing Opperman ).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.” State v. Gauster
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“This rule is not absolute, however, and we may address an issue in the interests of ju stice if addressing the issue w ill not work an unfair surprise on a party.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreason able.” State v. G auster
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
have probable cause to request Holt submit to a test via the implied consent procedure; and (3) the district court made erroneous factual findings.1 “When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, ‘we r eview the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State v. Brown 915 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Brown 915 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lugo , , 483 (Minn. 2016) ; State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted).
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Generally, warrantless searches are per se unreasonable.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [an appellate court] review[s] 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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[W]e review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” State v. Gauster
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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.” State v. Gauster , (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 371, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987); South Dakota v. Opperman , 428 U.S. 364, 373, 9 6 S. Ct. 3092, 3099 (1976); State v. Gauster , -10 (Minn. 1977).
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“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 clea rly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017