Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Holiday, 749 N.W.2d 833.

90 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie J. Bridgeforth, III, Susan J. Swanson v. Smith Strum Investment Co. d/b/a Winnetka Village Apartments Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Willie J. Bridgeforth, III, Susan J. Swanson v. Smith Strum Investment Co. d/b/a Winnetka Village Apartments Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-843 (Minn. App. 2008) (holding that the informant’s tip regarding drug activity was sufficiently reliable despite an unsuccessful controlled-drug buy).
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Keith Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Keith Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Even corroboration of minor details lends credence to an informant’s tip and is relevant to the probable-cause determination.”).
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
4 and circumstances given.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Kunta Kinta Viverette Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But veracity and basis of knowledge are “closely intertwined issues” and are not “separate and independent requirements.” (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, 103 S. Ct. at 2328).
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To evaluate the informant’s credibility, the district court “should consider the ‘basis of knowledge’ and ‘veracity’ of the informant supplying hearsay information.” (d 744, 750 (Minn. 1998)).
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Veracity and basis of knowledge are “closely intertwined issues” that are not “separate and independent requirements.” (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 230, 103 S. Ct. at 2328)).
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
As to the third reliability factor, the state asserts that the CI’s information was corroborated when Officer Mekash and Investigator Adam “personally identif[ied Williams] driving the vehicle described by” the CI.4 “Even corroboration of minor details lends credence to an informant’s tip and is relevant to the probable-cause determination.” see also Munson, d at 136 (stating that “independent corroboration of even innocent details of an informant’s tip may support a finding of probable cause”).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An issuing judge “is entitled to draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances given.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Devon Griffen Seivers Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Additionally, an informant’s statement that the event was observed first-hand entitles his tip to greater weight than might otherwise be the case.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
did not support an argument that marijuana was being consumed.” Probable cause “requires ‘only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.’” d 833, 843 (Minn. App. 2008) (quoting Olson v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, e.g., Munson, d at 136 (considering CRI’s proven track record and the corroboration of details about a vehicle and its occupants); (considering firsthand observations and corroboration of defendant’s name, nickname, physical description, gang affiliation, and vehicle information); -05 (Minn. App. 2004) (considering CRI’s track record, firsthand knowledge, corroboration of suspect’s clot
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity, the significant fact being not whether particular conduct is innocent or guilty, but the degree of suspicion that attaches to particular types of noncriminal acts.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antanie Devon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Antanie Devon Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Basis of knowledge and veracity “should not be ‘understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case’” but instead “‘as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the commonsense, practical question [of] whether there is ‘probable cause’ to believe that the contraband or evidence is located in a particular place.’” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2328 (1983)).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “the corroboration of even minor details lent credence to the information provided by the CI and bolstered the CI’s reliability,” and concluding that the corroboration of the suspects “name, nickname, physical description, gang affiliation, and vehicle information” bolstered th