Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-R…, 869 N.W.2d 863.

78 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Amy Lynn-Ishwar Butani v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Amy Lynn-Ishwar Butani v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-70 (Minn. 2015) (outlining the evolution of the good-faith exception as a limitation on the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule).
Jesse John Susa v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jesse John Susa v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-70 (Minn. 10 2015), that the exclusionary rule to the Fourth Amendment is a prudential doctrine and that the good-faith exception permits the admission of certain evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search
Ryan Paul Jirik v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ryan Paul Jirik v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655-56, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1691-92 (1961); -69 (Minn. 2015).
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan 886 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 886 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 886 N.W.2d 224 Minn. 2016
If we conclude that the warrantless blood or urine test would have been unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, the State argues that Thompson is still not entitled to relief because of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, 7 The State argues that because the arresting officer objectively relied in good faith on binding appellate precedent in choosing not to obtain a warrant in Thompson’s case, we should decline to suppress evidence of Thompson’s test refusal and uphold his con
State of Minnesota v. Todd Eugene Trahan 886 N.W.2d 216 Minn. 2016
We turn next to the State’s contention that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, requires us to affirm Trahan’s test refusal conviction.
Richard Lavern O�Gara v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Distinguished Richard Lavern O�Gara v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2186 n.9 (stating that if the court on remand finds that consent was not voluntary, it must determine whether the evidence obtained in the search must be suppressed when the search was done pursuant to a state statute and is offered in an administrative rather than criminal proceeding); -77 (Minn. 2015) (describing good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule).
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mitchell Edwin Morehouse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Lana Dawn Hansch Barnes v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that defendant may forfeit constitutional challenge to evidence by failing to make timely objection).
Mitchell Edwin Morehouse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
See Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2186 n.9 (stating that if the court on remand finds that consent was not voluntary, it must determine whether the evidence obtained in the search must be suppressed when the search was done pursuant to a state statute and is offered in an administrative rather than criminal proceeding); (describing good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule).
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
John Michael Kennedy v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
John Michael Kennedy v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The United States “Supreme Court has consistently restricted application of the exclusionary rule to ‘those areas where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.’” (quoting Calandra, 414 U.S. at 348, 94 S. Ct. at 620).
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Alan David Baum Minn. Ct. App. 2016
On the same day that Stavish was released, (Minn. Aug.
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 873 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson 873 N.W.2d 873 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The supreme court recently adopted the good-faith exception in the narrow situation where “law enforcement acts in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent.”
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
State v. Larson 868 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State v. Larson 868 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
ORDER Based upon all the Files, records, and proceedings herein, N.W.2d 863 , 2015 WL 4928147 (Minn. Aug.