Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779.
- State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 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. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
- State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
-
State v. Wicklund
589 N.W.2d 793
Minn. 1999
See State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21 , -23 (1961) (Minnesota’s due process standard may be developed independent of federal law); (declining to lower Minnesota’s standards for searches and seizures to federal level); (equal protection analysis under Minnesota law more stringent than federal law); -98 (Minn.1990) (greater religious libertie
- State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
- State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
- State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
- State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
- State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 1997
- State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
- City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, VIN: 1HD1DJL10NY510116, License No: 20438MC 555 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley Davidson, VIN: 1HD1DJL10NY510116, License No: 20438MC 555 N.W.2d 749 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
-
State v. Fiebke
554 N.W.2d 755
Minn. Ct. App. 1996
(rejecting Fourth Amendment interpretation of California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 , 111 S.Ct.
- State v. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
- State v. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
- Women of the State v. Gomez 542 N.W.2d 17 Minn. 1995
-
Women of the State v. Gomez
542 N.W.2d 17
Minn. 1995
Safety, (warrantless searches at sobriety checkpoints); (seizure); Friedman v. Commissioner of Pub.
- State v. Paul 536 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Paul
536 N.W.2d 649
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(holding that seizure occurred when police directed individual to stop).
- State v. Cripps 533 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1995
- State v. Cripps 533 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1995
- State v. Pfannenstein 525 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-
State v. Pfannenstein
525 N.W.2d 587
Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See generally (moral pressure to cooperate with police officer does not make police request “seizure”).
- Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 362 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- Gray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
- Gray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
-
Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety
505 N.W.2d 362
Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(rejecting United States Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment analysis in California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621 , 111 S.Ct.
- State v. Hanson 504 N.W.2d 219 Minn. 1993
-
Followed
State v. Hanson
504 N.W.2d 219
Minn. 1993
ming motorists, will turn the encounter into a Fourth Amendment seizure and any evidence discovered — drunkenness of the driver, dead body in open view in the back seat, *220 etc. — will be the suppressible fruit of the unjustified “stop.” Under the so-called Menden-hall/Royer approach 1 which we follow in determining whether a “seizure” has oc curred — — the question to be asked by the reviewing court is whether, looking at all of the facts, the conduct of the police would communicate to a reas