Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836.

585 citing documents.

Chad William Mosher v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high.” (quotation omitted).
Chad William Mosher v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“The reasonable- suspicion standard [for an investigatory seizure] is not high.” (quotation omitted)).
Kimberly Ann McGovern v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kimberly Ann McGovern v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043–44 (1973)).
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” –47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]arrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless one of ‘a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions’ applies.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Ray Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The United States and Minnesota Constitutions protect ‘the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’” (quoting U.S. Const. amend.
Jeremy Ray Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2043-44 (1973)).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Licari, d at 254-55 (remanding to determine if physical evidence would have been inevitably discovered on defendant): (considering but rejecting the use of the exception for a cigarette package): (applying the exception to drug found in the defendant’s jacket sleeve); (denying use of exception to photographs from a c
Tara Kay O'Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Tara Kay O'Connor v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2045 (1973); d 836, 846 (Minn. 2011).
Gregory Charles Van Schoonhoven v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Gregory Charles Van Schoonhoven v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2045 (1973)
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Clayton Leonard Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Clayton Leonard Thompson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
–47 (Minn. 2011) (quotations and citations omitted).
Paige J. Wentzel v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Paige J. Wentzel v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
It is the state’s burden to “show by a preponderance of the evidence that consent was given freely and voluntarily.”
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ali John Moin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ali John Moin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Furthermore, the district court’s reasoning is inconsistent with the concept of reasonable suspicion, which is “less demanding than the standard for probable cause” and requires only “a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We analyze the district court’s finding that consent to search was voluntary for clear error, which occurs when “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” -47 (Minn. 2011).
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. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
[may] stop and temporarily seize a person to investigate that person for criminal wrongdoing if the officer reasonably suspects that person of criminal activity.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An investigatory stop generally must be limited in scope to the original purpose of the stop, and “‘must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop,’” (quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1325 (1983) (plurality opinion)).
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
While the needed showing for reasonable suspicion is “not high” and “less demanding than [that for] probable cause or a preponderance of the evidence,” (quotations omitted), police may not use dog sniffs “at random and without reason,” (quotation omitted); see also Wiegand, d at 134 (“[T]he officer may not be motivated by mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Factual findings are clearly erroneous if “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” -47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Daniel Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
–43 (Minn. 2011) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Wasche, III Minn. Ct. App. 2014