DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Dezso, 512 N.W.2d 877.

129 citing documents.

  • Pamela Marie Faust v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    The relevant circumstances include “the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.” Brooks, d at 569 ().
  • State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
    This analysis requires that we consider the totality of the circumstances, “including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.”
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    A person’s consent to a search by the police must be “voluntarily given, without coercion or submission to an assertion of authority.”
  • State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    -81 (Minn.1994), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the defendants’ coerced or extracted consent to a warrant-less police search was invalid.
  • State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
    “Whether consent was voluntary is determined by examining ‘the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.’ ” Harris, d at 102 ().
  • State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    As such, any consent to be searched that is obtained “must be received, not extracted.” (applying Fourth Amendment protections to physical act of drawing blood and medical data obtained from subsequent chemical analysis).
  • State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Hagen 690 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    2041, 2052-56 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); (noting police advisory on right to refuse consent to search is only one factor in determining voluntariness of consent).
  • State v. Bunce 669 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Bunce 669 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    When determining whether the consent was voluntary, a court must “examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the search, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant was, and what was said and how it was said.”
  • State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    “[A]n officer has a right to ask to search and an individual has a right to say no.”
  • State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Smallwood 594 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
    However, “an officer has a right to ask to search and an individual has the right' to say no.”
  • State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    The Minnesota standard for determining whether consent is voluntary is “whether a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the officers’ request or otherwise terminate the encounter.” (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 , 111 S.Ct.
  • State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
  • State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
    In such a situation, the “requirement of voluntariness reflects ‘an accommodation of the complex values implicated in police questioning of a suspect.’ ” (quoting Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 224-25 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bell 557 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Bell 557 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
    Even if the detention of Bell was somehow justified by articulable suspicion, there is still the issue of whether Bell voluntarily consented to the search of his car “without coercion or submission to an assertion of authority.” (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 , 93 S.Ct.
  • State v. Pfannenstein 525 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Pfannenstein 525 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    (driver’s surrendering of wallet to officer after repeated and persistent requests was merely submission to a show of authority and not a voluntary consent).