Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kvam, 336 N.W.2d 525.

155 citing documents.

State v. Combs 394 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Combs 394 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
We also recognize that “trained law-enforcement officers are permitted to make ‘inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.’ ” (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418 , 101 S.Ct.
Ledin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Ledin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 393 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Johnson 392 N.W.2d 685 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
690, 695 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) ( ).
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Reese 388 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 759 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In applying this standard, we must consider the totality of the circumstances and recognize that a trained officer may make “ ‘inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.’ ” (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418 , 101 S.Ct.
Musgjerd v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Musgjerd v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Therefore, upon review, this court will not use the “clearly erroneous” *573 test, -29 (Minn.1983), but instead will determine as a matter of law whether the facts provide the trooper with probable cause for the arrest.
Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Engwer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Engwer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 418 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Bender 381 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Bender 381 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
te at the omnibus hearing that they had a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular persons stopped of criminal activity.” In applying this standard, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances and should remember that trained law-enforcement officers are permitted to make “inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.” (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Randle 381 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Randle 381 N.W.2d 88 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In applying this standard, we must consider the totality of the circumstances and recognize that “trained law-enforcement officers are permitted to make ‘inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.’ ” (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 418 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Ritchie 379 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Ritchie 379 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1985
This is because the trial court expressly credited the testimony of Deputy Peddycoart, stating that he was “very honest.” ■ Therefore, the appropriate approach to reviewing this case is not to use the “clearly erroneous” test — which is the test which would be used in the first instance if the trial court had rejected some of the deputy’s testimony, -29 (Minn.1983) — but to simply analyze the testimony of the officer and determine whether, as a matter of law, his observations provided an adequat
State v. Giebenhain 374 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Giebenhain 374 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that “[wjhether an automobile stop is valid depends on whether the police who made the stop are able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that they had a ‘particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular persons stopped of criminal activity.’ ” Id.
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct.
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Tottenham 368 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Tottenham 368 N.W.2d 367 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In reviewing an officer’s actions, the trial court should “consider the totality of the circumstances and should remember that trained law-enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Lahr 368 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Lahr 368 N.W.2d 6 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
In reviewing an officer’s actions, the trial court should “consider the totality of the circumstances and should remember that trained law-enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that might well elude an untrained person.” (quotations omitted).
Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O'Neill v. Commissioner of Public Safety 361 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O'Neill v. Commissioner of Public Safety 361 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. DeSart 357 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. DeSart 357 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Minnesota has adopted the “totality of the circumstances” test in determining “whether the police who made the stop are able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that they had a ‘particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular persons stopped of criminal activity.’ ”
State v. Hanson 356 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1984
State v. Hanson 356 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1984
(reversing an erroneous dismissal of an aggravated DWI prosecution).
State v. Wellman 355 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Wellman 355 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
ANALYSIS An automobile stop is valid if the peace officer is able to state a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular [person] stopped of criminal activity.” (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Claussen 353 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Claussen 353 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
State v. Studdard 352 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1984
1319, 1324 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983)
Schafer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 348 N.W.2d 365 Minn. Ct. App. 1984