Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pierce, 347 N.W.2d 829.

37 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”).
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. 2025
The court of appeals determined that its 1984 precedential decision 5 of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” 556 U.S. at 351.
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Raenard Romalle Douglas Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Kayla Catelyn Waltz Minn. Ct. App. 2022
The state points out that “[t]he detec tion of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitute s probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.” see 5 Although the evid ence shows that the officers asked Waltz if they could search the car and she responded affirmatively, the state ha s never argued that Waltz consented to the search.
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Renee Browder Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.” State v. Pierce , (citing 5 St.
State of Minnesota v. Morgan Robert Nehring Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See S (“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone .
State of Minnesota v. Nathan David Hunter Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[T]he detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search aut omobiles for further evidence of crime.” see also State v. Schultz , d 836, 837 (Minn. 1978); State v. Hodgman
State of Minnesota v. David Joshua John Skotte Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles fo r further evidence of crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Ardana Jo Beaulieu Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In State v. P ierce, we stated that “[i]t has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Bryant Estrada Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that police officer’s trained detection of illicit odors establishes probable cause to suspect drug activity).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan William Quast Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Robert Darrell Boettcher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Blane Hughes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
To support the conclusion that the odor of marijuana from the vehicle provided the officer with probable cause to search Hughes’s person, d 829, 833 (Minn. App. 1984), and State v. Ortega (Ortega I)
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Eugene Jackson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for furthe r evidence of crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Michael Alan Kalberg Minn. Ct. App. 2017
tomobile exception); see also State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (observing a search was justified after two officers detected the odor of marijuana); (stating that the odor of marijuana has historically provided an officer with probable cause to search), aff’d, (“It ha s long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
see also Ortega, d at 854 (clarifying that probable cause is a reasonableness test and applies regardless of the amount of marijuana found on driver), aff’d, (“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 405, (smell of burnt marijua
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
833 (Minn. App. 1984) (upholding stop of vehicle for “excessive muffler noise” and “noisy muffler”).
Justin Steven Luedke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Justin Steven Luedke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Logan Nicholas Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Logan Nicholas Clay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“It has long been held that the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search automobiles for further evidence of crime.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (upholding search initiated due to loud muffler); (affirming conviction stemming from stop prompted by noisy muffler).
State v. BEARDEMPHL 674 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. BEARDEMPHL 674 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(holding that stop based on noisy muffler was lawful).
State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
This court has determined that “the detection of odors alone, which trained police officers can identify as being illicit, constitutes probable cause to search * * (emphasis added); see also United States v. Ard, 731 F.2d 718, 723 (11th Cir.1984) (strong odor of marijuana around truck located in open field sufficient for finding of probable cause).
State v. Schuette 423 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schuette 423 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Stimpert 370 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Stimpert 370 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Propotnik 355 N.W.2d 195 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
at 1630 ; -33 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).