Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville, 890 N.W.2d 116.

25 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Josiah Kyllonen Chavis Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Tashawn Markus Kreckow Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota (A25-1353) v. Elizabeth Erin Korth, State of Minnesota (A25-1524), vs. Emily Noel Snyder Minn. Ct. App. 2026
5 “When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.” State v. deLottinville
State of Minnesota v. Erik Ozornia Minn. Ct. App. 2026
“[S]tanding to bring a Fourth Amendment claim hinges on whether [the defendant] has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place.” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Allan Mortensen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Frank Joseph Boyd Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(stating that Fourth Amendment rights are “personal and may not be vicariously asserted” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly 6 N.W.3d 161 Minn. 2024
(quoting Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143 (1978), for the principle that “standing to bring a Fourth Amendment claim hinges on whether [the defendant] has ‘a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place’ ”).
State of Minnesota v. Antonio Loren Garbow-Hanks Minn. Ct. App. 2021
implied that it was okay for Officer Walker to enter the residence.” “When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings u nder a clearly erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.” State v. deLottinville
Minn. 2020
(noting that an individual cannot vicariously assert Fourth Amendment rights); see also Miller, 425 U.S. at 437, 440 (concluding that the depositor had no Fourth Amendment rights to copies of his checks because they were better characterized as the bank’s business records).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2020
See, e.g., State v. deLottinville
A19-0714 Minn. 2020
See, (reviewing factual findings for clear error and legal determinations de novo).
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. Atwood 925 N.W.2d 626 Minn. 2019
State v. deLottinville , , 119 (Minn. 2017), cert.
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Leonard 923 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. deLottinville , , 119 (Minn. 2017), cert.
State of Minnesota v. Donald Charles Ancke Minn. Ct. App. 2018
18 “When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Nathan William Quast Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Evidence discovered by an illegal search must be suppressed under the fruit-of-the- poisonous-tree doctrine “unless the state can show that the subsequently obtained evidence has been purged of the primary taint.” (internal quota tions and citations omitted), aff’d
State of Minnesota v. Brian Alan Taylor Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. deLottinville , cert.
State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Atwood 914 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. deLottinville , , 119 (Minn. 2017), cert.
State of Minnesota v. Qumari Kenneth Spencer Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to su ppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings under a cl early erroneous standard and its legal determinations de novo.”
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
Recently, we held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor Article I, Section 10 required the police to obtain a search warrant before entering a third-party’s home to execute a lawfully issued arrest warrant for a guest.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Vincent Gottwald Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Rakas, 439 U.S. at 14 8-49, 99 S. Ct. at 43 3; -21 (Minn. 2017) (concluding that a guest, who is subject to an arrest warrant, cannot as sert the homeowner’s right to privacy); (legitimate expectation of privacy exists in a shared apartment); B.R.K., d at 576 (holding that a short-term social gues