Cited by

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

495 citing documents.

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Licari, d at 254-55 (remanding to determine if physical evidence would have been inevitably discovered on defendant): (considering but rejecting the use of the exception for a cigarette package): (applying the exception to drug found in the defendant’s jacket sleeve); (denying use of exception to photographs from a cellular phone), review denied (Minn. Oct.
State of Minnesota v. Troy Erik Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Erik Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christine Marie McGinty Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Deandre Dynell Burges Minn. Ct. App. 2015
not suppressing the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Christine Marie McGinty Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its decision whether to suppress the evidence as a matter of law
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
DECISION “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. Sharleen Leslie Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sharleen Leslie Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
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. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Meng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Meng Yang Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Appellant now appeals his convictions.1 DECISION “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. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Thus, “[a] hunch, without additional objectively articulable facts, cannot provide the basis for an investigatory stop.”
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joshua William Muckala v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Joshua William Muckala v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas John Rossiter Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carliss David-Lee Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Greer Elizabeth Dempster Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Greer Elizabeth Dempster Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bashir Abdullahi Farah 855 N.W.2d 317 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When a pretrial order on a suppression motion turns on a legal determination, such as an alleged constitutional violation, we “may independently review the [undisputed] facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing—or not suppressing—the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Irving Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error, and its decision whether to suppress the evidence de novo, State v. Harris
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Thus, “[a] hunch, without additional objectively articulable facts, cannot provide the basis for an investigatory stop.”
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Michael Lieser v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Michael Lieser v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jacob Robert Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that an appellate court reviews legal determinations de novo).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
B. Consent “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.”