Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Molnau, 904 N.W.2d 449.

28 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.B Minn. 2025
In the Matter of the Welfare of: C.T.B Minn. 2025
ANALYSIS When reviewing the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, “we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When reviewing the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Distinguished State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(quoting Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488); (“The State bears the burden of proving that police obtained the challenged evidence in accord with the Constitution.”).
State of Minnesota v. Terrell McNeal, Jr. 7 N.W.3d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Terrell McNeal, Jr. 7 N.W.3d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, appellate courts “review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Explained State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
2 –53 (Minn. 2017), we clarified that in the context of a premises search, the search of an unattended purse on the premises is not a search of one’s person.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“When reviewing the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
17 “A search that exceeds the scope of a warrant is unconstitutional.” (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 140 (1990)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
DECISION “When reviewing the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] review the district court’s factual fi ndings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: D. A. Y., Jr., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A search that exceeds the scope of a warrant is unconstitutional.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g. , State v. Molnau , -53 (Minn. 2017); -46 (Minn. 1978); State v. Hill , -42 (Minn. App. 2018).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Edstrom 916 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2018
State v. Edstrom 916 N.W.2d 512 Minn. 2018
State v. Molnau , , 451 (Minn. 2017).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Barker, 888 at 354; (upholding defendant’s conviction for possession of a controlled substance where police searched defendant’s unattended p urse during the execution of a search warrant).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(citing Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2482 (2014)).
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Bradley 908 N.W.2d 366 Minn. Ct. App. 2018