Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of D.A.G., 484 N.W.2d 787.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
25 (Minn. 1992) (recognizing that felony-level possession of two pounds of marijuana was not a “grave and violent offense” in the same sense as a suspected “execution-type murder” (quotations omitted)); (determining that a first-degree murder suspect did not com
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
5 A person with “common authority” over a residence “may consent to a search even though the person with whom that authority is shared is absent and does not consent.”
Mark Jerome Johnson, Minn. 2021
at 542 (d 787, 791 (Minn. 1992)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
(“[W]e make our own evaluation of the found facts in determining whether exigent circumstances exist.”).
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
Ellingson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 800 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ellingson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 800 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
We have described the test for single-factor exigent circumstances as one in which “the existence of one fact alone creates exigent circumstances.” (emphasis added).
State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
2022, 2042 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971)
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980); Othoudt, d at 222 .
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
507 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967); (extending the per se concept to the Minnesota Constitution); O’ (discussing the greater protections available under the Minnesota Constitution).
State v. Thomas 598 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Thomas 598 N.W.2d 389 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Wilson 594 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Wilson 594 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In interpreting the *419 clauses, the Minnesota Supreme Court has referred to the “greater protections of Article I, section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution.” (citing O’).
State v. Lembke 509 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Lembke 509 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
State v. Richards 495 N.W.2d 187 Minn. 1992
One year after defendant’s omnibus hearing, this court in concluded that “in a competition between an absent cotenant’s right to consent to a search and another cotenant’s constitutional right to be free from that warrantless search, the constitutional right must prevail.” The facts and circumstances of defendant’s case are distinguishable from those in D.A