Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Baumann, 759 N.W.2d 237.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“Finally, because the dog-sniff search was legal, its result provided probable cause for the search warrant.”), rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In examining the totality of the circumstances, courts are to consider “possible innocent explanations for the alleged suspicious activity.” State v. Baumann , rev. denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
We judge the re asonableness of the suspicion against “possible innocent explanations for the alleged suspicious activity.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Baumann , review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
Michael Scott Torfin, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
determination of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, State v. Miller , review denied (Minn. July 15, 2003), and a cl ear-error standard to a district court’s factual findings, considering the “tota lity of the circumstances pertaining to the issue, including possible inno cent explanations for the a lleged suspicious activity,” (d 173, 182 (Minn. 2007)).
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Marie Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Marie Schmidt Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In analyzing the totality of the circumstances, courts should consider “possible innocent explanations for the alleged suspicious activity.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(acknowledging “the low threshold the courts have set for reasonable suspicion,” and concluded that “the information [the Officer] relied upon as the basis for his suspicion was ‘something more’ than an unarticulated hunch and that he was able to point to ‘something’ that ‘objectively’ suppo
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
This includes consideration of “possible innocent explanations for the alleged suspicious activity.” review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
241 (Minn. App. 2009), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
IV and Minn. Const, art. I, § 10); (citing Davis and Carter, noting that use of narcotics dog sniff in common hallway of apartment building to determine presence of narcotics in apartment unit was a search that required reasonable, articulable suspicion under Minn. Const, art. I, § 10), review denied (Minn. Mar.