Cited by

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

180 citing documents.

State v. Edstrom 901 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety, (addressing temporary roadblocks for the purpose of discovering evidence of alcohol-impaired driving); (defining when a seizure has occurred).
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
Paul Robert Mix, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Donald Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993) (listing examples of evidence, including “t he threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some 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 might be compelled” (qu
David Kenneth Schlicher, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
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 occurs only “when the police use physical force or a person submits to a show of authori
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(providing examples of conduct by police that may indicate a seizure, including “the threatening presence of severa l officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 890 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Leona Rose deLottinville 890 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 2017
2481 , 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990), that roadblocks that indiscriminately stop all drivers in an effort to apprehend drunk drivers violate Article I, Section 10); -83 (Minn. 1993) (holding, contrary to California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 , 111 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron James Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron James Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A seizure occurs “when 4 the 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)).
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The standard for determining whether a seizure has occurred is whether, under 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.”
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Albert Lacey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Albert Lacey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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 3 protection than the Fourth Amendment, under which a seizure only occurs when the police use phys
State of Minnesota v. Jayson Stanley Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jayson Stanley Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tony Luke Fisher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-32 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Mar.
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Peak relies on for the proposition that he was seized because “a reasonable person in [his] shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kevin Earl Westergaard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
5 seizure occurs “‘when the 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)).
Rita Dolores Illi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 873 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rita Dolores Illi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 873 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Parkin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Parkin Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding that there clearly was a seizure once the police directed the defendant to stop).
State of Minnesota v. Erik Edward Malmquist Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erik Edward Malmquist Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
Safety, (sobriety-checkpoint roadblock constitutes an unreasonable seizure absent an “objective individualized articulable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing”); (seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave).
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993).
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Leonard Bowman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ricardo Leonard Bowman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.”
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
I. When the arrest occurred To decide whether an individual is under arrest, we “determin[e], objectively and on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would have concluded that he or she was not free to leave.”
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014