Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 444 N.W.2d 824.

117 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-26 (Minn. 1989) (“The suspicion that the officer must be able to articulate must be more than an unarticulated ‘hunch;’ the officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports his suspicion.”).
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Antwan Hegwood Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Antwan Hegwood Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We acknowledge that “‘innocent activity might justify the suspicion of criminal activity.’” ( (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 9, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 1586 (1989))).
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that an actual traffic violation is not necessary to justify a stop); (“[I]nnocent activity might justify the suspicion of criminal activity.”).
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald Wallace Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Wallace Butler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
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
Again, the supreme court has stated that in light of the circumstances, “innocent activity might justify the suspicion of criminal activity.”
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Anderson 671 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Anderson 671 N.W.2d 900 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
“[I]n all stop cases, the decision for the trial court at the suppression hearing depends on whether the officer is able to articulate at the hearing a ‘particular and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ ” (quoting United, States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
s insufficient to support trial court conclusion that officer had a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity justifying investigative stop); (finding officer's stop of vehicle thought to be driven by owner with revoked license was not unconstitutional because officer had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); (finding stop of vehicle warranted where officer reasonably suspected driver of wrongdoing based on his evasive conduct); -33 (Minn.1985) (stating vehicle stops are
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(police had right and duty to respond to and investigate report of suspicious activity); (driver’s evasive conduct provided articulable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant stop).
State v. Schrupp 625 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Schrupp 625 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
cases the district court cited in denying Schrupp’s motion.
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
State v. Uber 604 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Uber 604 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(citing United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
The brief seizure of a person for investigatory purposes is not unreasonable if an officer has a “ ‘particular and objective basis for suspecting the particular person [seized] of criminal activity.’ ” (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Martinson 581 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1998
State v. Martinson 581 N.W.2d 846 Minn. 1998
Similarly, we have also stated that “innocent activity might justify the suspicion of criminal activity.” , 826-,27 (Minn.1989) (citing Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 9 , 109 S.Ct.
State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
690, 695 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); (holding officer must be able to point to something that objectively supports his position).
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
-26 (Minn.1989) (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct.
State v. Greyeagle 541 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Greyeagle 541 N.W.2d 326 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
(police justified in stopping car after driver engaged in evasive driving behavior); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (police justified in stopping car where license plates were affixed to the vehicle in an unusual manner).
Kranz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 539 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Kranz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 539 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
The officer must have more than a “hunch” and must be able to “point to something that objectively supports his suspicion.” -26 (Minn.1989) (citing United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 , 109 S.Ct.
State v. Cripps 533 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1995
State v. Cripps 533 N.W.2d 388 Minn. 1995
The officer, however, must be able to *392 point to objective facts and may not base his or her conclusion on a “hunch.” -26 (Minn.1989).
State v. Petrick 527 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1995