Cited by

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

585 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Marcia Jean Schlingmann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jodie Kay Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jodie Kay Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that “[t]he 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,” and that “the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard controls [an appellate court’s] review of a district court’s finding of voluntary co
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Michael Barshaw 879 N.W.2d 356 Minn. 2016
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Forstrom Walsh 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.” (quotation omitted).
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
Our cases establish that when examining a pretrial order on a motion to suppress, we review “the district court’s factual findings under our clearly erroneous standard,” and the “legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (emphasis added) ( (“This court affords great deference to an issuing judge’s findings of fact, which we will reverse only if clearly erroneous.
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
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. Jayson Stanley Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jayson Stanley Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878-80 (1968); -43 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Nicholas James Heinz v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts that allow the officer to be able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” -43 (Minn. 2011) (quotation omitted).
Nicholas James Heinz v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high” and is “less demanding than the standard for probable cause.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles ONeal Darby, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles ONeal Darby, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The standard for reasonable, articulable suspicion is “not high,” but “requires at least a minimal level of objective justification.” (quotations omitted).
Jarrod Dwayne Miller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Andrew Faust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khong Meng Kong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Khong Meng Kong Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The inevitable discovery doctrine allows the admission of seized evidence “[i]f the state can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the fruits of a challenged search ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means.” (quotation omitted).
Jarrod Dwayne Miller v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Andrew Faust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“The reasonable-suspicion standard is not high.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)).
State of Minnesota v. Sonny Ray Juday 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. William Martin Odette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Scott Welch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Martin Odette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts that allow the officer to be able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” –43 (Minn. 2011) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Scott Welch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The reasonable, articulable suspicion standard is “not high,” but “requires at least a minimal level of objective justification.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1878-80 (1968); -43 (Minn. 2011).
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee Myhre 875 N.W.2d 799 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Vernon David Matter Minn. Ct. App. 2016