Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Davis, 393 N.W.2d 179.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nelson Randolph, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Id.; -04 (Minn. 1990); d 179, 181 & n.1 (Minn. 1986).
State of Minnesota v. Jacob James Simons Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Likewise in State v. Davis, the supreme court considered the constitutionality of a traffic stop that a police officer initiated after a passenger in an adjacent car shouted to the officer stopped at an intersection that the car behind her “just ran the red light.”
State of Minnesota v. Eric Anthony Klaysmat Minn. Ct. App. 2024
The supreme court in Davis, however, held that a brief “face -to-face confrontation” between an officer and an informant, while the informant was “driving a car from which his identity might easily be traced” meant that “the informant was in a position to be held accountable for his intervention.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Luke Adam Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 179, 181 (Minn. 1986).
Jesse M. Gregorich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2022
See S (stating that face-to-face tips are more reliable than those called in because the informant can be held accountable for giving false information).
State of Minnesota v. Brian Curtis Winge Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Phillip Demry Minn. Ct. App. 2021
the caller necessarily claimed eyewitness knowledge of the alleged dangerous driving.”); Shepherd, d at 888-89 (reasoning that attendant’s report of observing an intoxicated driver leave gas station “ suggested that the driv er had been in the station and that the caller’ s information was based on personal observation of the driver himself”); -81 (Minn. 1986) (reasoning that passenger’s report that nearby car ran red light indicated she “had obtained her information in a reliable way” because “
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Bigham Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Gabino Otero Labra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gabino Otero Labra Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Adams, 407 U.S. at 146, 92 S. Ct. at 1923
State v. Balenger 667 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Balenger 667 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
(holding that tip provided by female passenger who leaned out of car window and, motioning to only car in view, shouted that car had just run red light was sufficiently reliable to justify investigative stop, even though officer did not see any improper driving before stopping suspect car); see also U
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(informant’s face-to-face report of traffic violation justified stop).
Rose v. Commissioner of Public Safety 637 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Rose v. Commissioner of Public Safety 637 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
This information suggested that the driver had been in the station and that the caller’s information was based on personal observation of the driver himself, just as the information relayed in Marben and [State v.] Davis[, ] had been based on personal observation.
Jobe v. Commissioner of Public Safety 609 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Jobe v. Commissioner of Public Safety 609 N.W.2d 919 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
at 890, n. 1 (identifying information supports reliability of tip even if police do not follow up and confirm the information); 3 (face-to-face tip from unidentified motorist who continued on her way found reliable); Marben, d at 699 (tip from unidentified trucker found reliable).
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
State v. McCloskey 453 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1990
State v. McCloskey 453 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 1990
we upheld a stop based on information provided a police officer in a brief face-to-face confrontation *704 with an unnamed tipster on the street.
Playle v. Commissioner of Public Safety 439 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Playle v. Commissioner of Public Safety 439 N.W.2d 747 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
the police officer had a basis for thinking the informant had obtained her *749 information in a reliable way, because she or the driver had seen the car in question drive through the red light.
City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd 420 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1988
City of Minnetonka v. Shepherd 420 N.W.2d 887 Minn. 1988
Purnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 410 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Purnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 410 N.W.2d 439 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
181 and n. 1 (Minn.1986).
State v. Warren 404 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Warren 404 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Stich 399 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Stich 399 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(stop was proper when based on information from passing motorist that defendant had just driven through a red light); Marben v. State Department of Public Safety , (stop for tailgating that occurred a few minutes prior to stop upheld).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by