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. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90.

495 citing documents.

  • State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Colosimo 648 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Colosimo 648 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    (reviewing dismissal for lack of probable cause); (stating that courts may independently review the facts and determine whether the district court erred by not suppressing evidence).
  • State v. Johnson 645 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Johnson 645 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    ANALYSIS ‘When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Stoskopf 644 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Stoskopf 644 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    ANALYSIS “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing- — or not suppressing — the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Couillard 641 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Couillard 641 N.W.2d 298 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    When reviewing a state’s appeal from a pretrial order suppressing evidence, “we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing * * * the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Kua Vang 636 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Kua Vang 636 N.W.2d 329 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Dalos 635 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Dalos 635 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    When reviewing the state’s appeal from a pretrial order suppressing evidence, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing * * * the evidence.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Wiegand 621 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Wiegand 621 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Anderson 620 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 620 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Baumann 616 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Baumann 616 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Robledo-Kinney 615 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Robledo-Kinney 615 N.W.2d 25 Minn. 2000
    When we review a pretrial order seeking to have evidence suppressed, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in * * * not suppressing [ ] the evidence.”
  • State v. Haataja 611 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Haataja 611 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -99 (Minn.1999) (person is not "seized merely because a police officer approaches him in a public place or in a parked car and begins to ask questions”) (citation omitted).
  • In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred ip suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.”
  • Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, VIN: 1GTEK19R4TE551384 606 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Richmond 602 N.W.2d 647 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • 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 mult
  • State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
    (citing both in holding that defendant was seized "within the meaning of Article 1, Section 10” of the Minnes