Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d 105.

60 citing documents.

Donald Charles Ancke, III, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
7 Third, to argue that the deputy’s search should not have gone f urther than the kick panel area, where he found a noncriminal amount of marijuana .
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
7(1) (2022) (requiring vehicle to be driven “as nearly as practicable entirely within a single lane”); -26 (Minn. 2001) (concluding that officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity because driver crossed and recrossed fog line); 109 (Minn. 1983) (concluding that officer had reasonable suspicion because driver committed multiple “violations of the traffic laws,” including “crossing over into the opposite lane of traffic”); Soucie v. Commissioner 6 of Public Safety, -65
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
When an officer obtains probable cause to believe that a search of an automobile will reveal open bottles of alcohol, the officer can search “where those open bottles or cans might be found.” (concluding that an officer’s search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle was supported by probable cause given the odor of alcohol emanating from the underage passengers and their admission to drinking).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2023
15 supports its argument that the odor of marijuana, alone, creates probable cause to search because the odor of alcohol justified a search under the automobile exception.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Schinzing , State v. Lopez , review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
At oral argument, the state relied on State v. Schinzing , for the proposition that, once an officer finds evidence or contraband in a vehicle, 8 the officer may then continue searching the vehicle to look for ad ditional evidence or contraband.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[T]he scope of a warrantless search of an automobile is defined by the object of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe that it may be found.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
is court’s observation in Wagner: “When there is credible testimony that the driver actually crossed the centerline, this court and the supreme court have uniformly found investigatory stops valid.” d at 33 5 (citing State v. Richardson , (finding reasonable suspicion when vehicle crossed fog line and there was an anonymous tip); 109 (Minn. 1983) (holding objective basis for stop when vehicle did not display license plate, had object hanging from rearview mirror, and made wide turn and crossed c
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“The discovery of the [marijuana] cigarette clearly justified the further search of the car....
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
2587 , 2593 n. 12, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981)
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Raines 709 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
at 863-64 (-05 (Minn.1985) (refusing to suppress because the violation was a technical violation of a statute where there was little doubt a court order would have been issued on request); -09 (Minn.1983) *277 (citing other cases to the same effect); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 386-87 , (agreeing with the approach adopted by federal courts for violations of Fed.R.Crim.P.
State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
The state appealed the pretrial order, 1 and the court of appeals reversed the district court’s order, in which we permitted a vehicle search when an officer detected the odor of alcohol coming from a vehicle.
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wagner 637 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Wagner 637 N.W.2d 330 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, (finding reasonable suspicion when vehicle crossed fog line and there was anonymous tip); 109 (Minn.1983) (holding objective basis for stop when vehicle did not display license plate, had object hanging from rearview mirror, and made wide turn and crossed center line); (finding reasonable suspicion when vehicle turned without signaling and crossed c
State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
the supreme court affirmed a finding of probable cause to search a vehicle where the vehicle was being driven erratically, the officer knew the vehicle’s occupants and knew they were underage, the officer smelled alcohol coming from the vehicle’s interior and, when the officer asked the passengers if
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
(“Requesting a stopped driver to show his license is standard procedure in stop cases.”).
State v. Darnall 498 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Darnall 498 N.W.2d 295 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
(if police lawfully discover contraband in passenger compartment of car, they then have probable cause to search trunk); see also United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 , 102 S.Ct.
State v. Tilleskjor 488 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Tilleskjor 488 N.W.2d 327 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. White 489 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1992
State v. White 489 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1992
2587, 2593, n. 12 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2(f) at 375 (2d ed. 1987).
State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
See, -05 (Minn.1985) (refusing to suppress because violation was technical violation of *864 statute and “[tjhere can be little doubt that a court order would have been issued on request”); -09 (Minn.1983) (citing some of the other cases of this court to the same effect); State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 386-87 , (stating that “[w]e fully agree with the approach adopted by the Federal courts” for violations of R. 41).
State v. Buswell 460 N.W.2d 614 Minn. 1990
Piotrowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 453 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1990
Piotrowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 453 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 1990
§ 629.37 (1988) [-09 (Minn.1983), -78 (Minn. 1980), and Smith , 253 Minn, at 224, d at 764 ].
State v. Bigelow 451 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1990
State v. Bigelow 451 N.W.2d 311 Minn. 1990
See, -11 (Minn.1983), holding in relevant part that (a) the lawful discovery of drugs or other *313 contraband in a motor vehicle gives the police probable cause to believe that a further search of the vehicle might result in the discovery of more drugs or other contraband and (b) if probable cause justifies a search o
State v. Schuette 423 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Schuette 423 N.W.2d 104 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Costillo v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1987
Costillo v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1987
Cf., however, (refusing to automatically exclude confession obtained from Spanish-speaking defendant in violation of statute requiring appointment of interpreter); (questioning whether exclusionary rule should apply to any violation of state law by officer in acting outside his jurisdiction); (refusing to automatically exclude statement obtained as a product of unnecessary delay before arraignment under our state rules of c
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. Schmitz 369 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Schmitz 369 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
-09 (Minn.1983); -78 (Minn.Ct.App.1984).