Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Harris, 590 N.W.2d 90.

497 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Heather Delores Spry Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 225 -26, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 6 2046-47 (1973); State v. Diede , 7 State v. Harris , -03 (Minn. 1999).
Alex Jeffrey Mayer v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Harris , d 90, 102 (Minn. 1999) (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Salud Botello Vargas Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Ellen Louise Arnt v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether consent was voluntary is determined by examining ‘the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the encount er, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.’” (citation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
The officer must be able to articulate more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch[.]’ ” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968)
State of Minnesota v. Matthew William Vos Minn. Ct. App. 2019
3 “Seizure occurs when the office r, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way re strained the liberty of a citizen.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Brian John Abrahamson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
ere violated, and the district court erred by denying his suppression motion, because he was misl ed about his obligation to undergo the PBT and HGN test.1 “When reviewing pretrial orders on mo tions 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.”
State of Minnesota v. David Barrientoz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Christopher London Walker v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that officer “may draw inferences and deductions that might elude an untrained person”).
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Casey Tope Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Rather, a s eizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Scott Lawrance Ziegler Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Jay Bolkema Minn. Ct. App. 2019
dog sniff of [his] car.” Bolkema asks this court to “overturn the denial of [his] motion to suppress and reverse his conviction.” 1 In reviewing a district court’s decision to deny a motion to suppress evidence, this court “independently review[s] the facts and determine[s], as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Kirk Patrick Kalkbrenner Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Joshua John Leary v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
App. 1997) (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Dennis Dean Blumke Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Todd Alexander Gunther Minn. Ct. App. 2019
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.”
State of Minnesota v. Zong Lee Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Dylan David Tonn Minn. Ct. App. 2019
To determine whether consent is voluntary, courts look at “the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.” (quotation omitted).
Adam Lindsay Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A18-0970), State of Minnesota (A18-1103), vs. Adam Lindsay Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Indeed, the officer’s suspicion must be more than the product of “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds
State of Minnesota v. Scott Erwin Flowers Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. James Martin Rusthoven Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Guytrell Edward Hawkins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Joseph Porter Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See Askerooth, d at 364 (concluding that each incremental intrusion during a stop must be justified by the circumstances that made the stop permissible, and an intrusion not closely related to those circumstances 6 invalidates the search or seizure unless independent probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists); see also State v. Harris , (explaining that pat search was justified by unusual nervousness, secretive movements, and attempt to conceal object).
State of Minnesota v. Brandyn Lee Hulsebus Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A district court determines voluntariness of consent by taking into consideration “the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Richard LeBre Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Michael Neil Labrasca v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Whether consent was voluntary is determined by examining the totality of the ci rcumstances, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Jon Unsworth Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Devell Eshawn Warren Minn. Ct. App. 2018
because the other person to the encounter is a police officer.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. DeAntae Demond Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Gary Walter Granger Minn. Ct. App. 2018
see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 552, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1876 (1980)
State of Minnesota v. Jared Lee Radermacher Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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.”
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
Ries v. State 920 N.W.2d 620 Minn. 2018
See State v. Harris , , 104 (Minn. 1999) (citing Terry , 392 U.S. at 30 , 88 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Ethan Malcolm Shepherd Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Although a law -enforcement officer may seize a person based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, “[n]ot all encounters between the police and citizens constitute seizures.”
Ellen Louise Arnt v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
9 circumstances, including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Quentin Laurel Rasmussen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Chad Harold Dyrdahl Minn. Ct. App. 2018
D E C I S I O N “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.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Benji Kenneth Woehle Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Not all encounters between the police and citizens constitute seizures.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Louis Yaeger Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Michael Lee Morgan Minn. Ct. App. 2018
5 suppressing—or not suppre ssing—the evidence.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Amy Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] may independently review the facts and determine, as a matt er of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”
John Cortland Robinson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2018
absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1883 (1968)) (quotation marks omitted) , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001) ; see also State v. Harris , (“ A hunch, without additional objectively articulable facts, c annot provide the ba sis for an investigatory stop.”).
State of Minnesota v. Trenton John Horn Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Nathan William Quast Minn. Ct. App. 2018
backpack located inside the car were lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.1 When reviewing a pretrial order suppre ssing evidence, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing— or not suppressing—the evidence.” ().
State of Minnesota v. Leanda Rae Muhonen Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In reviewing a district court’s pretrial suppression ruling, “we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whethe r the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppre ssing—the evidence.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Jordan Lee Downwind Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Kendra Joanne Shulman Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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 in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Deron Shandell Murphy Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“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.” ().
State of Minnesota v. John Duane Fairbanks Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(internal citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Xavier Richard Jamieson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, [appellate courts] may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.” State v. Harris