Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Payne, 406 N.W.2d 511.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
E.g., State v. Payne , (noting that “there are certain cases in which the right to conduct [a pat-down search] follows directly from the right to stop the person” and listing examples, including “robbery, burglary, rape, assault with weapons, homicide, and dealing in large quantities of narcotics ” ( quotation omitted
Minn. 2021
See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30–31 (holding that an officer may conduct a limited protective weapons frisk of a lawfully stopped person if the officer has an objective articulable basis for thinking that the person may be armed and dangerous); State v. Payne , d 511, 513–14 (Minn. 1987) (concluding that officer’s act of removing passengers from a C-5 vehicle and searching them for weapons was permissible under Terry).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(“An officer may conduct a limited protective weapons frisk of a lawfully stopped person.” (emphasis added)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
The supreme court has held that “there are certain cases in which the right to conduct [a limited, protective weapons] frisk follows directly from the right to stop the person.” 5 State v. Payne
State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Craig Ryan Schwoboda Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Craig Ryan Schwoboda Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1884-85 (1968)
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Lemert 829 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
In State v. Payne, we recognized that “ ‘[i]f by investigation or happenstance the quantum of evidence needed to justify a forcible stop has dissipated * * ⅜, then it is not permissible to frisk.’ ” (quoting 3 Wayne LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.4(a), at 502 (1987)).
In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
(citing Terry v. State of Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
It has been recognized that the right to frisk for weapons is automatic whenever the suspect has been stopped for a type of crime for which the offender, would normally be armed, such as ‘“robbery, burglary, rape, assault with weapons, homicide, and dealing in large quantities of narcotics.’” (quoting 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.04(a), at 506 (1987)).
State v. Eggersgluess 483 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Eggersgluess 483 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(the right of officers to “frisk” is not the automatic sequel of a valid stop); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 9.4(a), at 505 (2d ed. 1987) (mere belief that every person encountered may be armed “cannot mean * * * that a search for weapons may be undertaken in every case”).
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Moffatt 450 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1990
State v. Moffatt 450 N.W.2d 116 Minn. 1990
-76 (Minn.1988), -14 (Minn.1987) (cases suggesting that when police stop people suspected' of burglary and other serious crime such as robbery or assault they usually have a right to frisk for weapons).
Wold v. State 430 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1988
Wold v. State 430 N.W.2d 171 Minn. 1988
we acknowledged that the right of officers to conduct a “frisk” search was not the automatic sequel of a valid stop, we did cite *176 with approval Professor LaFave in sustaining the validity of a “pat down” search.