Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lopez, 631 N.W.2d 810.

36 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Even if the incorrect placement of the temporary permit were not, in itself, a traffic violation, rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Klamar, d at 694; rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(concluding that suppression of a “chemical test showing an alcohol level in excess of the statutory limit” critically impacted the state’s ability to prosecute a DWI offense); -13 (Minn. App. 2001) (concluding that suppression of evidence from a traffic stop that documented a minor’s signs of 6 impairment critically impacted the state’s ability to prosecute the respondent for charges that he procured alcohol for minors), rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
We have held that, where a police officer “detected the odor of alcohol coming from the interior” of a vehicle, that odor provided the officer “with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, i.e., an open bottle in the car,” such that “she had a lawful basis to continue [a] detention and conduct an investigation.” rev. denied (Minn. Sep.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
An officer may conduct a warrantless vehicle search “under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment if the officer has probable cause to believe the search will produce evidence of a crime.” (quotation omitted) , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
Jesse Bruce Jensen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Once appellant opened the door, the first officer detected an odor of alcohol and had a lawful basis to expand the welfare check to inquire further and request field sobriety tests.2 rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
15, 2006); State v. Lopez , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Lopez , review denied (Minn. 2001).
Lee Ray Bolch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
A19-0015 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
2(1)(c)b. But a criminal charge need only be supported by probable cause, which “is defi ned as some showing by evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show the existenc e of the facts alleged.” State v. Lopez , review denied ( M i n n .
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Klamar , d at 696 (bloodshot and watery eyes); *662 State v. Lopez , , 814 (Minn. App. 2001) (odor of alcohol), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Schinzing , State v. Lopez , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
–14 (Minn. App. 2001) (explaining that “the validity of the original stop continues at least long enough for the officer to approa ch the car and inform the driver he is free to go” because it would be “impractical” to suggest that the officer, upon seeing evidence dispelling the basis for the stop, should “imm
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
If the inference becomes unreasonable, the officer may “approach the car and inform the driver he is free to go,” State v. Lopez , review denied (Minn. Sept.
Michael David Groschen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (odor of alcohol and bloodshot and watery eyes); State v. Vonderharr , (odor of alcohol and admission of drinking); (odor of alcohol), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (odor of alcohol and bloodshot and watery eyes); State v. Vonderharr , (odor of alcohol and admission of drinking); State v. Lopez , (odor of alcohol), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Laurie Ann McIntyre, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 687, 696 (Minn. App. 2012); see also State v. Lopez , (upholding the expansion of a stop based on the officer’s noticing the odor of alcohol alone), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Roger William Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roger William Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The factual basis required to support a stop is minimal, and an actual 5 violation is not necessary.” (citation and quotations omitted), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-14 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Alexander Nathan Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alexander Nathan Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Nathan Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Nathan Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. Sept.
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (stating that two indicia of intoxication provided reasonable, articulable suspicion for a preliminary breath test); (holding that an odor of alcohol provides a lawful basis to continue a detention), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Gradishar 765 N.W.2d 901 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ANALYSIS “When the state appeals from a pretrial order dismissing a criminal charge, this court will reverse only if the state clearly and unequivocally demonstrates that the district court erred and that the error, unless reversed, will have a critical impact on the outcome of the prosecution.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-14 (Minn.App.2001), review denied (Minn. Sept.