Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pierce, 358 N.W.2d 672.

30 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Under our substantial-basis standard of review, we consider “the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would keep the items.”
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla 7 N.W.3d 585 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Angel Ignacio Sardina-Padilla 7 N.W.3d 585 Minn. 2024
Under our substantial-basis review, we consider “the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would keep the items.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Souto , –748 (Minn. 1988 ).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-1623 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating that “the normal place one would keep extra bullets for his gun and papers showing ownership of his gun would also be at his residence”).
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Roger Earl Holland 865 N.W.2d 666 Minn. 2015
We consider “the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would keep the items.”
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(relying on information that the defendant had shot the victim to establish probable cause to search defendant’s house).
State v. Yarbrough 841 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2014
State v. Yarbrough 841 N.W.2d 619 Minn. 2014
State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
In making a probable-cause determination, courts must consider the nature of the crime “and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would normally keep the items [sought].” See Harris, d at 788 ().
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
Among the factors for the issuing judge to consider “are the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the süspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would normally keep the items.” Id ().
State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 589 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 1999
“Among the factors considered in determining whether there is a sufficient showing of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a particular place are the type of crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would normally keep the items.”
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M. 560 N.W.2d 687 Minn. 1997
Whereas probable cause to search requires police to have a reasonable belief that incriminating evidence is in a certain location, probable cause to arrest requires police to have a reasonable belief that a certain person has committed a crime, -22 (Minn.1996).
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Hagen 361 N.W.2d 407 Minn. Ct. App. 1985