Cited by

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

425 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(concludin g that the state waived an argument that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement applied because the record was not sufficiently developed and the state failed to raise the argument at the district court).
State of Minnesota v. Dillen James Hinkemeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dillen James Hinkemeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-09 (Minn. 2008) (declining to 1 Hinkemeyer does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that the K-9 search was lawful.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler 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.’” 4 (Minn. 2008) ().
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron James Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Erik John Heinonen 889 N.W.2d 817 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Aaron James Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. William Henderson, Sr. Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. William Henderson, Sr. 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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Lee Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cassandra Lee Lundgren Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harvey McGee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harvey McGee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 4 district court’s legal determinations de novo.’” ().
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl 886 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl 886 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(concluding that state forfeited warrant-exception argument by failing to raise it below, reasoning that “[appellate courts] generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal”).
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that critical impact is present when suppression of evidence leads to the dismissal of charges).
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Matthew Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Dwayne Judkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Dwayne Judkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 496, 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Theron Dean Ibarra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theron Dean Ibarra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Jamal Poole Minn. Ct. App. 2016
es that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress all evidence on the grounds that it was obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure.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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Grant Jason Bresnahan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Grant Jason Bresnahan Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 4 legal determinations de novo.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Marie Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Marie Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016