Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Williams, 794 N.W.2d 867.

131 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joshua Scott Leithe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert David Stoneburner v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Robert David Stoneburner v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues” relate to constitutional challenges, but they may choose to do so, “when the interests of justice require their consideration and when doing so would not work an unfair surprise on a party.” d 867, 874 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Maureen Ndidiamaka Onyelobi 879 N.W.2d 334 Minn. 2016
Where, as here, the facts are undisputed, we review the “pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo.”4
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester 874 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester 874 N.W.2d 768 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Rafael Alfonso Banks 875 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alan Early Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Alan Early Minn. Ct. App. 2016
It was at this point that Laux acquired probable cause to continue his investigation and arrest because, as the district court correctly noted, “it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in public unless the individual has a permit; the permit is an affirmative defense to the offense.”
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alonzo Crowder Minn. Ct. App. 2015
challenges to the constitutionality of a statute.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Mark Christian Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“A warrantless arrest is reasonable if supported by probable cause.” 2 “Probable cause to arrest exists when a person of ordinary care and prudence, viewing the totality of circumstances objectively, would 1 “In order for an appellate court to review a pretrial order, the State must show that the district court’s ruling will have a critical impact on its case.” S
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clarence Bruce Beaulieu 859 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 2015
1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal procedure or are challenges to the constitutionality of a statute”); , 422 n. 6 (Minn.2006) (explaining t
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dylan Micheal Kelley 855 N.W.2d 269 Minn. 2014
834 (1944)); (explaining that “[w]e ordinarily do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, even when those issues are constitutional questions of criminal procedure or are challenges to the constitutionality of a statute”); , 422 n. 6 (Minn.2006) (explaining that th
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawnti Tramayne Fleming Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Matthew Thomas Fahey v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cree Rae Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cree Rae Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
[appellate courts] review a pretrial order on a motion to suppress de novo and determine whether the police articulated an adequate basis for the search or seizure at issue.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
875 n. 6 (Minn.2011) (noting that the Supreme Court in Heller did not announce the level of scrutiny that courts should apply when determining whether a state action violates Second Amendment rights).