DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Combs, 398 N.W.2d 563.

35 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    efendant’s assault on an officer even if the officer illegally entered defendant’s home); (“It is well settled that even when police conduct an illegal arrest or search, evidence of a crime committed in response is not suppressed as a fruit of the prior illegality.”), rev’d n.2 (Minn. 1987).
  • State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
  • State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
    (holding even “innocent activity might justify the suspicion of criminal activity”) (citation omitted); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 22 (holding police may initiate a stop when “a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent” if viewed separately, “warranted further investigation” when taken together); -66 (Minn. 1987) (rejecting trial court’s conclusion that, if the observed facts are consistent with innocent activity, then the stop is invalid).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
    .W.2d 787, 789 (Minn. 1981) (appellant pointed a gun at an officer who had entered the room to investigate a call on an assault with a dangerous weapon); State v. Bale , (appellant pointed a pistol at the arresting officer before engaging in a “s cuffle” with the officer); State v. Combs , rev’d in part on other grounds , (arresting officer’s arm beca me trapped in a car window when appellant rolled up the 10 window and attempted to flee).
  • State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (holding that evidence of defendant’s resistance to arrest may not be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree); -69 (Minn.App.1986) (holding an illegal arrest does not require suppression of evidence of a crime committed in response to the arrest), rev’d in part on other grounds
  • State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
  • State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
    (holding that evidence of defendant’s resistance to arrest may not be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree); -69 (Minn.App.1986) (holding an illegal arrest does not require suppression of evidence of a crime committed in response to the arrest), rev’d in part on other grounds
  • State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    -90 (Minn.1988) (assault on police officers who illegally entered defendant’s house should not be suppressed); (assault and obstructing legal process evidence were not suppressible), rev’d on other grounds, , 565 n. 2 (Minn.1987).
  • State v. Blacksten 507 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Blacksten 507 N.W.2d 842 Minn. 1993
    An investigative stop may be made on any articulable suspicion as long as it is not “the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity.” (citations omitted).
  • State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
  • State v. Fakler 503 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 1993
    1581, 1586-87 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989); -66 (Minn.1987).
  • State v. Blacksten 489 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Blacksten 489 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    The standard for an investigative stop is minimal, and requires only that the stop not be the product of “whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.”
  • Cummins v. Klenk 474 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • Cummins v. Klenk 474 N.W.2d 443 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
  • State v. Johnson 444 N.W.2d 824 Minn. 1989
    Accord, -66 (Minn.1987) (rejecting trial court’s conclusion that, if the observed facts are consistent with innocent activity, then the stop is invalid).
  • City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
  • City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
    for” the illegal arrest, the evidence of the violent response would not be suppressed); (“It is well settled that even when police conduct an illegal arrest or search, evidence of a crime committed in response is not suppressed as a fruit of the prior illegality.”), , 565 n. 2 (Minn.1987).
  • Schwartz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 422 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
  • Schwartz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 422 N.W.2d 761 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
    690, 694-95 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)
  • Holm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Holm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    690, 694-95 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)
  • Erickson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 415 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Erickson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 415 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
    1868, 1879 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); (particularized objective basis for suspect *701 ing criminal activity is needed to stop).
  • Vivier v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Delaney 406 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Vivier v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • State v. Delaney 406 N.W.2d 584 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Daly v. Commissioner of Public Safety 405 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
  • Daly v. Commissioner of Public Safety 405 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 1987