Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr., 887 N.W.2d 476.

157 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Shawn Casey Tope Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Reasonable suspicion is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. William Joseph Ihrke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Brian Dale Preston Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Jarvis Michael Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Erik Heiderscheid Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Dylan David Tonn Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Devell Eshawn Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Somboon Lor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Maynard Alciun Kettler Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Reasonable suspicion is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Lee Ironhawk Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chris Becerra Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 476, 486 (Minn. 2016).
Terry John Ascheman v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A17-1988), and State of Minnesota (A18-0348), vs. Terry John Ascheman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Spencer Charles Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 476, 481 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Gerald Keller Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 476, 481 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Estrada Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lugo , , 481 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Samuel Mathew Amaro Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Whether there is reasonable suspicion is a mixed question of fact and constitutional law.” State v. Lugo
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Michael Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
It is enough that a law enforcement officer can articulate specific facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, objectively support the officer’s suspicion.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremia Michael Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Igor Pavlovich Albantov Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Cole Gilbert McGuire v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But a police officer may make a brief investigatory stop if “the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion [of] criminal activity.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antwan James Woods Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Under Fourth Amendment caselaw, one such exception exists when an officer conducts “a brief, investigatory stop when the officer ha s a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” State v. Lugo , ().
State of Minnesota v. Brian Alan Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lugo , d 476, 486 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Morgann Craighead Buie Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gayles 915 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lugo , , 483 (Minn. 2016) ; State v. Gauster , , 502 (Minn. 2008).
State of Minnesota v. Lynae Nicole Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Jerad Michael Whitford Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Lugo , -86 (Minn. 2016) (permitting appellate review on the merits once critical impact is established).
Alfonso Carillo Buenaventura v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In Fourth Amendment caselaw, it is well-established that an officer performs official duties when he conducts “a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Ervin Salo Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Qumari Kenneth Spencer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Lugo , d 476, 486 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Cole Earl Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
We review the district court’s legal determinations, including a determination of probable cause, de novo.” (citation omitted); see also State v. Lugo , -85 (Min n. 2016) (holding same standard applies to state’s pretrial appeals).
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Prigge 900 N.W.2d 890 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-86 (Minn. 2016) (permitting appellate review on the merits once critical impact is established).
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Eugene Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 476, 486 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Eugene Tabaka Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
State v. Harris 895 N.W.2d 592 Minn. 2017
The dissent also argues that previously we have been willing to overrule our standards of review, *599 (Minn. 2006)
State of Minnesota v. Jorge Armando Benavides Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. D. B., Juvenile Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See State v. Lugo , (stating that an 6 unreasonable search is constitutionally prohibited and that a search conducted without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable).
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
State v. Thomas 891 N.W.2d 612 Minn. 2017
We interpret rules of procedure de novo and “follow a rule’s plain language when it is unambiguous.”
State v. Osorio 891 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2017
-87 (Minn. 2016) (holding that once the State demonstrates a critical impact, the court can proceed to the merits).
State of Minnesota v. Sharlene Melissa Stewart Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 476, 481 (Minn. 2016).
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 890 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 890 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Louis Puttbrese Minn. Ct. App. 2017