Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Roosevelt Hunter, 857 N.W.2d 537.

39 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Antoine Kenneth James Adkins Minn. Ct. App. 2025
d 537, 543 (Minn. App. 2014) (noting that reasonable suspicion “ must be present at the moment a person is seized” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Luther Boris Cousette Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Reasonable, articulable suspicion must be present at the moment a person is seized.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jontrail Wesley Dawson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Reasonable, articulable suspicion must be present at the moment a person is seized.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(addressing “issues raised by defendant on appeal that may arise on retrial”); (addressing an issue raised by a defendant “in the interests of judicial economy because it will likely arise again on remand”).
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Chaz Edwin Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
are sufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion.”
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Keevin Lashawn Hinton Minn. Ct. App. 2023
We have held that “a defendant must exercise dominion and control over the [item] itself in order to constructively possess it.”
State of Minnesota v. James Dean Olson, II Minn. Ct. App. 2023
16, 2001), the defendant must exercise dominion and control over the substance itself, not merely the area in which it was located, -43 (Minn. App. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. David Busch Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Edbin Jose Coreas Minn. Ct. App. 2023
He cites State v. Hunter, where the appellant argued that a jury instruction materially “misstate[d] the law by diverting the jury’s attention from whether [the appellant] exercised dominion and control over the cocaine to whether he merely exercised dominion and control over his SUV where the cocaine was found.” d 537, 542 (Minn. App. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Raytavien Rashad Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Derrick George Rocha Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Israel Frederick Elder Minn. Ct. App. 2022
consciously exercising dominion and control over [the item].” -43 (Minn. App. 2014) (holding that dominion and control is required over the item, not the place where the item is found).
Christopher Lee Haugen v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2022
at 611; (explaining that constructive possession requires a suspect’s exercise of dom inion and control over the item, not over the place where it is found).
State of Minnesota v. Karl Alfredo Rosillo Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota v. Kong Meng Xiong Minn. Ct. App. 2021
at 611; (explaining that constructive possession requires a suspect’s exercise of dom inion and control over the substance, not over the place where it is found).
State of Minnesota v. Alfred Richard Einberger, III Minn. Ct. App. 2021
see also State v. Hunter , (clarifying that constructive possession requires a suspect’s exercise of dominion an d control over the substance, not over the place where it is found).
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Yernatich Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Salyers, d at 159; d 537, 542 (Minn. App. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Henderson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
13 See, e.g., State v. Hunter
Michael Douglas Holm v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Prior to conducting an investigatory stop, a police officer “must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Jesus Octavio Peralta Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Alan Bemboom Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See id.; d 537, 542-43 (Minn. App. 2014).
State of Minnesota v. James Alan Hanson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hunter , -43 (Minn. App. 2014).
Robert Jon Myhran, II v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Prior to condu cting an investigatory stop, a police officer “must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.”
James Donald Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jovon Nathan Freshwater Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Hunter , (finding reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate where officers conducting surveillance in an area known for drug activity observed appellant park his SUV in a remote area of a parking lot, a sedan entered and parked next to the SUV a few minutes later, and the individuals in the sedan
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carlos Maurice Harris Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashimiyu Gbolahan Alowonle Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“[A] defendant must exercise dominion and control over the [contraband] itself in order to constructively possess it.”); (noting that “mere proximity to criminal activity” is insufficient to establish probable cause for arrest for po
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Clint Ryan Serrano Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 537, 542 (Minn. App. 2014) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dominic Jason Allen Sam 859 N.W.2d 825 Minn. Ct. App. 2015