Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 371 N.W.2d 552.

102 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Safety, (noting that even an anonymous tip may be reliable if it provides “specific and articulable facts to support the bare allegation of criminal activity”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Royce James Stute, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Safety, , 556 (Minn. 1985) (affirming the rescission of a license revocation after determining that law enforcement did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Doering compares his case to two cases in which a Minnesota appellate court held that an informant’s tip did not provide the requisite reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop: and Rose
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
, A22-0103 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Joshua John Leary, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety, -56 (Minn. 1985) (applying Fourth Amendment protection to license-revocation proceeding).
Thomas Gerald Rothmeier, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety , –56 (Minn. 1985) (applying Fourth Amendment protection to license revocation proceeding); Ascher v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Safety , (stating that the factual basis of the tip must be sufficient to justify a stop).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Safety, , a case involving an anonymous tip about a drunk driver, requires us to conclude that the police lacked reasonable suspicion because the witness who called the dispatcher eventually revealed that he did not know if Dickey had stolen anything on that day.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Distinguished James Donald Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety , ] in that the information given here indicated that there was a valid basis in fact for the statement that the driver of the car was intoxicated.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Safety, and Rose v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Safety, in which the supreme court held that when a stop is based on a tip alone, an “anonymous caller must provide at least some specific and articulable facts to support the bare allegation of criminal activity.” (Emphasis added.)
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Safety, in support of her argument that the caller provided insufficient specificity to establish the 5 reliability of the tip.
Christine Marie Tomlinson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (A15-1424), and State of Minnesota, (A15-1431) v. Christine Marie Tomlinson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Christine Marie Tomlinson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, (A15-1424), and State of Minnesota, (A15-1431) v. Christine Marie Tomlinson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In Olson v. Commissioner of Public Safety, for example, the supreme court invalidated a stop that rested on an anonymous caller’s “bare assertion of a possibly drunk driver on the road.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Scott Welch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Scott Welch Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Safety, –56 (Minn. 1985) (holding 5 anonymous caller’s report of “a possible drunk driver” completely lacked indicia of reliability and was not sufficient to establish reasonable, articulable suspicion).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Safety, (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Jill Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Jill Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Thompson argues that the tip did not give police reasonable suspicion of criminal activity because the security guard failed to provide specific, articulable facts to support his conclusion that Thompson “appeared to be under the influence.” In support of this argument
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (quotation omitted) (“All that is required is that [a] stop be not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.”).
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, (noting that the informant was anonymous and concluding that the tip lacked adequate specificity regarding why the tipster believed the suspect driver was drunk).
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, d 552, 556 (Minn. 1985) (concluding police lacked reasonable suspicion based on an anonymous tip where nothing was known about the informant or about what the informant actually saw); (distinguishing Olson on the basis that information was received from a known relia
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Safety, (recognizing *426 that officer’s and dispatcher’s collective knowledge may provide reasonable articu-lable suspicion); (“Under the ‘collective knowledge’ approach, the entire knowledge of the police force is pooled and imputed to the arresting officer fo
State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Safety, (quotation omitted).
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Safety, (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 244 n. 13, 103 S.Ct.
Yoraway v. Commissioner of Public Safety 669 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Yoraway v. Commissioner of Public Safety 669 N.W.2d 622 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Balenger 667 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Balenger 667 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Safety, (stating that “fourth amendment protection applies at the time the police intrusion *138 is undertaken and is not to be judged by what the police learn after the intrusion”).