Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martinez, 579 N.W.2d 144.

21 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The demonstration of reasonable suspicion involves “a strong showing that an unannounced entry is a necessity.” rev. denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
This involves “a strong showing that an unannounced entry is a necessity.” review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. Holiday , (addressing district court’s failure to “afford great deference to the issuing magistrate” (quotation omitted)); (“Similar to reviewing whether a warrant was supported by probable cause, [a] district court should generally give great deference to a magistrate’s decision to include a no -knock provision in a search warrant.”), review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
( determining that general observations in affidavit regarding “what drug dealers are known to do and how drugs may be discarded easily, none of which were specific to [the defendant]” did not justify an unannounced entry); -48 (Minn. App. 1998) (concluding that warrant-affidavit language that 14 drug traffickers “are often armed with firearms and other dangerous weapons and will use these weapons” did not justify an unannounced entry), review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Carla Camille Thomas Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bourke, d at 927; review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. James Nils Andersen Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Minnesota has not adopted a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.4 review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998); n.10 (Minn. 2007) (commenting that Minnesota has “consistently declined to adopt, much less even address, the .
State of Minnesota v. Christine Michelle Lacroix Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christine Michelle Lacroix Minn. Ct. App. 2014
review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See Wasson, 615 *d at 320 (stating that “[t]o substantiate the need for a no-knock warrant an officer must establish more than that drugs are involved”); -48 (Minn.App.1998) (language in application that drug traffickers “are often armed with firearms and other dangerous weapons and will use these weapons” is not sufficiently particularized (quotation omitted)), review denied (Minn. July 16,1998).
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Moreover, boilerplate language without particularized reasons for an unannounced entry is insufficient to show that an announced entry “would be dangerous or allow the destruction of evidence.” -48 (Minn.App.1998) (finding that officer’s statement that “because of his experience he knew that the occupants would likely have and use weapons” was a generalization), review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
Garza v. State 619 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Garza v. State 619 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. July 16,1998).
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Mar *866 tinez, review denied (Minn. Jul.