Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Martinson, 581 N.W.2d 846.

91 citing documents.

Nicholas James Heinz v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn 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))).
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Jill Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melissa Jill Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
While the reasonable- suspicion standard is not high, it cannot be based on a mere “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
31, 2009); (concluding that even seemingly innocent activity can form the basis for reasonable suspicion).
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Todd Timothy Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Marquin Lamont Craig Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Heaton 812 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
However, the officer must “be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quotations omitted).
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
State v. Anderson 733 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 2007
It is “ ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting [a] person * * * of criminal activity.’ ” (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 , 116 S.Ct.
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Davis 711 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
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
can be sufficient bases for finding reasonable suspicion.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Tomaino 627 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Tomaino 627 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(although each factor was consistent with innocent behavior, factors taken together justified reasonable suspicion of criminal activity); review denied (Minn. June 21, 1989) (observation of apparently innocent acts can be significant to a trained
State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-01 (Minn.1999) (concluding that officers who boarded a bus did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to search a defendant, noting that the behavior the officers were looking for, including looking around to see if police were present and appearing nervous, “could be consistent with the activities of any multitude of innocent persons”); -52 (Minn.1998) (nervousness was but 1 of 16 articulable facts that in their totality amounted to reasonable suspicion).