Cited by

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

589 citing documents.

Yia Her v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968))
Stanley Paul Wenell-Jack v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jerome Pratt Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Donovan Jon Gilfillan v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Ihrke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(emphasis added) (quotations omitted).
Antone Larron Owens v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Consent is not involuntary merely because the circumstances of the encounter are uncomfortab le for the person being questioned.” State v. Diede , (quotation omitted).
Joshua John Leary v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968))
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Dean Blumke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jarvis Michael Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The reasonable-suspicion standard is not a high one, State v. Diede , 3 (Minn. 2011), but the investigatory stop may not be the result of “mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity,” -22 (Minn. 1996).
State of Minnesota v. Davon Keontae Garner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
D E C I S I O N Garner contends that his conviction must be reversed because the police unlawfully stopped the vehicle in which he was a passenger and the firearm “would not have been discovered if [the] officers had not conducted the illegal stop.” 2 See State v. Diede , (“Evidence obtained as a result of a seizure without reasonable suspicion must be suppressed.”).
State of Minnesota v. Zong Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-81 (1968)).
State of Minnesota v. Dylan David Tonn Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Adam Lindsay Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A18-0970), State of Minnesota (A18-1103), vs. Adam Lindsay Williams 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. Paul Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high, State v. Diede , 3 (Minn. 2011), but the investigatory stop may not be the result of “mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity,”
State of Minnesota v. James Martin Rusthoven Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See id.; (“While nervousness alone may not be sufficient to provide a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, it may be added to the totality of other circumstances to support a conclusion that drug -related criminal activity is afoot.”).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Ronald Shaw Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12-13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968); d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Jon Prochnow Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Evidence obtained as a result of a seizure without reasonable suspicion must be suppressed.”
State of Minnesota v. Anthony Owen Kelley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-81 (1968)
State of Minnesota v. Jordan David Stuckey Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Vincent Edward Britton Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-81 (1968)).
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Diede , , 846 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Lee Antoine Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “protect ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.’” (quoting U.S. Const. amend.
State of Minnesota v. Brandyn Lee Hulsebus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Richard LeBre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 836, 846 (Minn. 2011).
Michael Neil Labrasca v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Thomas Gerald Rothmeier v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Christian Alfo Cano Fernandez Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Diede , (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19–21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879–81 (1968)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Thomas Hesch Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Jon Unsworth Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devell Eshawn Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968)
State of Minnesota v. Somboon Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. DeAntae Demond Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
James Willard Francisco v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Consent is only a valid exception to the warrant requirement, however, if it was given “freely and voluntarily.” State v. Diede
State of Minnesota v. Gary Walter Granger Minn. Ct. App. 2018
from the perspective of a trained police officer, who may make ‘inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.’”) (quoting United States v. Cortez , 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S. Ct. 690, 695 (1981)); State v. Diede , (noting that the court is to determine reasonable, articulable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances at the time of the seizure, the rational inferences from those facts, from the perspective of a reasonable police office) ; State v. Davis , (noting
Barbara Faye Sproul v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Brian Paul Keller v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chris Becerra Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12–13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968)
Kurt William Sawyer v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968); -43 (Minn. 2011).
Jeffery John Huebner v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Diede , (“Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ethan Malcolm Shepherd Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Connor J. K. Willis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 836, 846 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Mary Catherine Wento Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ellen Louise Arnt v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 836, 846-47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Cabbott James Weyker Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Timothy Barnett Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“For a search to fall under the consent exception, the [s]tate must show by a preponderance of the evidence that consent was given freely and voluntarily.”
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Estrada Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high but requires more than a “hunch,” or “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity,” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Benji Kenneth Woehle Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Mathew Amaro Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jeremia Michael Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 13, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1875 (1968)