Cited by

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

585 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Arthur Senty-Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Arthur Senty-Haugen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brian Albert Patten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” 4 -47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Keith Charles Lexvold v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Amador Molina Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Keith Charles Lexvold v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high.” (-43 (Minn.2011)) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl 886 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Dwight Liebl 886 N.W.2d 512 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“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 omitted); see also Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014) (“In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls 5 within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.”).
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing 2 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Evidence obtained as a result of a seizure without reasonable suspicion must be suppressed.” d 836, 842 (Minn. 2011).
Richard Lavern O�Gara v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard Lavern O�Gara v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
This includes examining “the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.”
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Theron Dean Ibarra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Frederick Smart Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Nicole Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mitchell Edwin Morehouse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mitchell Edwin Morehouse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Frederick Smart Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Theron Dean Ibarra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” -47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Nicole Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The question whether a consent to a search was in fact ‘voluntary’ or was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied, is a question of fact.” (quotation omitted).
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” –47 (Minn. 2011).
Michael Paul Tulenchek-Armstrong v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Paul Tulenchek-Armstrong v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry James Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry James Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Whether consent was voluntary is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.” (quotation omitted); see also Brooks, d at 569 (applying the same analysis).
State of Minnesota v. Gabino Otero Labra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ian Jorgen Crocker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paige Julieanna Wentzel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ian Jorgen Crocker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” –47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Paige Julieanna Wentzel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gabino Otero Labra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, [the reviewing court is] left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” –47 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Anthony Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Anthony Reed Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879-80 (1968); -43 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Marcia Jean Schlingmann Minn. Ct. App. 2016

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by