Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779.

180 citing documents.

In the Matter of the Welfare of: P. K. T., Child. Minn. Ct. App. 2026
On the other hand, “the mere act of approaching a person who is standing on a public street or sitting in a car that is parked and asking questions is not a ‘seizure.’”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Evidence obtained as a result of a seizure for which police cannot articulate reasonable suspicion “is suppressible.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Although Engel raised suppression arguments pursuant to both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, Engel argues on appeal that he is entitled to “more expansive protections” under the Minnesota Constitution, and
Royce James Stute, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Richard Chavez-Aguilar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Richard Chavez-Aguilar Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Sarah Jean Mona Dubinsky Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n.16).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Minnesota courts consider the following circumstances to determine whether a seizure has occurred: “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some 9 physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request must be compelled.”
Jesse M. Gregorich, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
A seizure occurs “when [an] officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(holding that the remedy for a constitutional violation is suppression of the evidence).
Criticized State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See, (moral pressure to cooperate with police officer does not make police request “seizure”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Nicholas Roger Marczak, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
A seizure occurs “when [an] officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 n.16 (1968)).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
d 779, 783 (Minn. 1993) (“[W]e are not persuaded by the majority opinion in Hodari, and we are persuaded that there is no need to depart from the pre-Hodari approach.” (emphasis omitted)); see also State v. Askerooth , (Mi nn.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(explaining that “any evidence that is the fruit of the [unlawful] seizure is suppressible”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
A seizure occurs “when [an] officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 n.16 (1968)); see also State v. Harris
Criticized State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Criticized Larry Francis Stevens, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
suppress , the district court must find that “under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that because of the conduct of the police he was not free to leave, then there was a ‘seizure,’ and the police must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion justifying the seizure, or else any evidence that is the fruit of the seizure is suppressible.”
Garrett Thomas Cekalla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554-55, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980)).
Thomas Randal Schreyer, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3 (Minn. 1993) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544, 554 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980) for the conclusion that a seizure occurs when “a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave”).
Stanley Paul Wenell-Jack, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Under the Minnesota Constitution, a seizure occurs when, given the totality of the circumstances, “a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.” (explaining that article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, under which a seizure only occurs when the police use physical force or a person submits to a show of authori
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
see also Askerooth, d at 362 (explaining that article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution provides greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, under which a seizure only occurs when the police use physical force or a person submits to a show of authority by the police).
State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Thompson 929 N.W.2d 21 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 552, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1876 (1980)
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
781-83 (Minn. 1993) (discussing the standard used to determine whether a person is seized under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
-82 (Minn. 1993); -32 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16 (1968)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that “the display of a weapon by an officer” is among the circumstances that may indicate a seizure has occurred (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re Welfare 8 of E.D.J.
State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Davis 910 N.W.2d 50 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993) (quoting Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 n.16 (1968)).
State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017