Cited by

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

589 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas Eric Walbridge Minn. Ct. App. 2021
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Koulton Ugene Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Diede , see also Terry , 392 U.S. at 27.
State of Minnesota v. Brian Curtis Winge Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Robert Herman Larsen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
The reasonable-suspicion standard is “not high.” (quotation omitted).
Nicholas Roger Marczak v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Stacy Lynn Tuomi Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“Evidence obtained as a result of a seizure without reasonable suspicion must be suppressed.”
State of Minnesota v. Isaiah Kerry Toussaint Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Diede , -44 (Minn. 2011) (concluding reasonable, articulable suspicion must exist prior to a search and seizure).
State of Minnesota v. Kenneth Carl Hamilton Minn. Ct. App. 2021
-43 (Minn. 2011) (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dewayne Romel Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Loren Garbow-Hanks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ezekiel John Miller Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Luis Omar Chaparro Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Phillip Demry Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Germaine McCray Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Ronnie Bila Shaka Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Shareef Najeeaullah Shaheed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Brenden Reynolds Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“Mere proximity to, or association with, a person who may have previously engaged in criminal activity is not enough to support reasonable suspicion.”).
State of Minnesota v. Denarro Jesse Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2020
But it must be based on specific, articulable facts that allow the officer to articulate “that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspe cting the seized person of 5 criminal activity.” State v. Diede , -43 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Francisco Meffert Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Deschene Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The United States and Minnesota Constitu tions protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, a nd effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” (quotation omitted) (citing U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Elliott Skinaway, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Scott Weber Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The district court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if an appellate court, after reviewing the record evidence, is “left with the definite and firm con viction that a mistake occurred.” State v. Diede , -47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Douglas Bert Melby, III Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A police officer may “stop and temporarily seize a person to investigate that person for criminal wrongdoing if the officer reasonably suspects that person of criminal activity.” State v. Diede , (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kenny Alan Herold Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Trevon Lashaun Manuel Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878 -80 (1968); - 43 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Louis Larell Osborne Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Evan Kujava Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jude Thomas Mary O’Neill Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See, (recognizing that factual findings regarding motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error); State v. Chavarria-Cruz , (same).
State of Minnesota v. Christian John Donnelly Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings [for clear error],” (citation omitted), and its determinations of reasonable, articulable suspicion de novo, State v. Diede , .
Minn. 2020
under an assumed or fictitious name”) ; –50 (Minn. 2011) (foregoing a harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt analysis when the State’s only evidence was obtained as fruit of the poisonous tree).
State of Minnesota v. Jared Michael Desroches, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 439-40, 104 S. Ct. at 3150; -43 (Minn. 2011); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30-31, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884-85 (1968).
Kathleen Margaret Eileen Ochs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
The reasonable-suspicion standard is “not high.” (quo tation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Irwin James Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Citing State v. Diede , appellant argues that “[m]ere proximity to, or association with, a person who may have previously engaged in criminal activity is not enough to support reasonable suspicion of possession of a contr olled substance.”
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Adrian Walz Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jomar Londo Haines Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio set forth the principle that officers may “temporarily detain a suspect without probable cause if (1) the stop was justified at its inception by reasonable articulable suspicion, and (2) the actions of the police during the stop were reasonably related to and justified by the circumstances that gave rise to the stop in the first place.” (quotations omitted).
Kevin Nelson Birkland v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, an officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop if they have reasonable, articulable suspicion that “criminal activity may be afoot .” Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884 (1968); See also S tate v. Diede , d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011) .
Alex Jeffrey Mayer v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Consent is one such exception.2
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Allen McCarthy Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When reviewing a district court’s pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findin gs under a clearly erroneous standard and the district court’s legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. William Dumont White Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Jose Salud Botello Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Diede , (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
Ellen Louise Arnt v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless one of a few specifically established and well -delineated exceptions applies.” (quotations and citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Richard Rousu Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Munson , (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968))
State of Minnesota v. Ruben Leeander Chappelle Minn. Ct. App. 2019
that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.’” -43 (Minn. 2011) ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Abrahamson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Devon Dennis Carstensen Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Reasonable suspicion is “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesse William Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Casey Tope Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Jay Bolkema Minn. Ct. App. 2019

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by