Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester, 874 N.W.2d 768.

98 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
    One exception to the warrant requirement is the “automobile exception,” under which the police may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers inside, if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    “[T]he totality of the circumstances includes reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret 6 circumstances differently than untrained persons.” d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    One exception to the warrant requirement is the “ automobile exception,” which allows police officers to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    One exception to the warrant requirement is the “automobile exception,” under which the police may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers inside, if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” ( quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Automobile Exception The automobile exception to the warrant requirement permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers in th e vehicle, “if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” ( quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Under the automobile exception, a police officer may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers in that vehicle, if there is “probable cause 4 to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    4 The automobile exception provides that if the police have “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband,” d 768, 771 (Minn. 2016) (), “they may search every part of the vehicle and its contents which may conceal the object of the search.”
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    Under the auto mobile exception, the warrantless search of a vehicle includes any “closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    act.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    “Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to wa rrant a reasonably prude nt person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    e state responds that the officers’ actions were permissible under another exception to the warr ant requirement—the automobile exception.5 The automobile exception a llows police to search a vehicle, including closed containers, when “there are facts and circ umstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent [person] to believe that th e vehicle contains contraband.” State v. Lester , (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    Additionally, an officer may consider reasonable inferences drawn from the facts “based on [his] training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained 5 persons.” State v. Lester
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    State v. Lester , (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
    to the specific reasonable inferences which [the officer] is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience ” (emphasis added)); (stating that training and experience are relevant because “police officers may interpret circumstances differen tly than untrained persons”); State v. Martinson , (Page, J., dissenting) (“[T]he state must articulate what it is about the officer’s training and ex
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    A probable-cause inquiry includes “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    “Probable cause exists when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” 71 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitte d).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A probable-ca use inquiry includes “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumst ances differently than untrained persons.”
  • Igor Pavlovich Albantov, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    And Albantov’s attorney did challenge the vehicle search by asserting a lack of probable cause under the applicable motor-vehicle exception to the warrant requirement, which permits police to search a vehicle without a warrant “if there is probable cause to believe t he search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” State v. Lester , 11 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    (stating that appellate courts give “due weight” to reasonable inferences because, “based on their training and experience, .
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “Probable cause is an objective inquiry,” that includes “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons.”
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    The motor-vehicle exception permits a police officer to s earch a n automobile if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” State v. Lester , (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    that the seizure occurred once the trooper asked respondent to step out of the vehicle so that she could search the vehicle, and both parties acknowledge 9 that the motor-vehicle exception is at issue.1 The motor-vehicle exception allows a trooper to search a vehicle if there is “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    “Probable cause is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the circumstances in each case.”
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    Furthermore, under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, “the police may search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable 7 cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    The “automobile exception” allows police to “search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to belie ve that the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (citation and quotation omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    The totality of the circumstances “includes reasonable inferences that 6 police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience, because police officers may interpret circumstances differently than untrained persons.”
  • Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
    A police officer has probable cause to search under the automobile exception “when there are facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that the vehicle contains contraband.” (quotation omitted).
  • Christopher London Walker, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “We review de novo a [postconviction] court’s determination of probable cause as it relates to a warrantless search.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “Probable cause is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the circumstances in each case.”
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See, -70, 772 (Minn. 2016) (stating that police corroborated the details of a CRI’s tip by observing a man described by the CRI arrive at the location identified by the CRI within the specified tim eframe).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    Determining whether probable cause exists “is an objective inquiry that depends on the totality of the circumstances .” State v. Lester
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    See State v. Willis , (upholdi ng search of a vehicle where police officer observed, in plain view, a firearm); see also State v. Lester , (stating that, under the “automobile exception,” police “may search a car without a warrant, including closed contai ners in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband” (quotation omitted)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    “One such exc eption is the automobile exception, under which the police may search a car without a warrant, including closed containers in that car, if there is probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quotations omitted).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    One exception to the warrant requirement is th e “automobile exception,” under which a police officer may search a vehicle without a warrant, including closed containers in that vehicle, if there is “probable cause to believe that the search will result in a discovery of evidence or contraband.” (quoting State v. Search , ).
  • State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
    Automobile exception Under the automobile exception, police may search a vehicle without a warrant if police have “probable cause to believe the search will result in a discovery of evidence or 6 contraband.” State v. Lester , (M inn.
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Jon Larcom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Eric Jon Larcom Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    Probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances, including “reasonable inferences that police officers draw from facts, based on their training and experience.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Dawayne Lester Minn. Ct. App. 2016
    In an opinion filed on February 10, 2016, the supreme court reversed, concluding that the district court properly denied appellant’s suppression motion because “the search of [appellant’s] car was lawful under the automobile exception.” -73 (Minn. 2016).
  • State of Minnesota v. Rashad Darnell Norwood Minn. Ct. App. 2016
  • State of Minnesota v. Rashad Darnell Norwood Minn. Ct. App. 2016