Cited by

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

495 citing documents.

Bruce Joseph Fischbach v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bruce Joseph Fischbach v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 90, 102 (Minn. 1999) (“Whether consent was voluntary is determined by examining the 5 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. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
at 880 (alteration in original) (quotation omitted); (holding that consent to search defendant was voluntary where two plainclothes officers entered a bus, announced their intention to question all passengers, told defendant that search was consensual, and asked to search him and his bag, because defendant unequivocally gave permission for the sear
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Christopher Roehl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Christopher Roehl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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. Paul Joseph Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
If “the facts are not in dispute, a reviewing court must determine whether a police officer’s actions constitute a seizure and if the officer articulated an adequate basis for the seizure.”
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Jayne Holmes-Buscher Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Anna Marie Ashenbrenner v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Bryce Edward Ramthun v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Jayne Holmes-Buscher Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION “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.”
Bryce Edward Ramthun v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine whether consent was voluntary, the totality of the circumstances must be examined, “including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said.”
Anna Marie Ashenbrenner v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine whether consent was voluntary, the totality of the circumstances must be examined “including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and 3 what was said and how it was said.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pamela Marie Faust v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Pamela Marie Faust v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See id.; (“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 .
Nicolas Wilcox Hult v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Paul Scheiterlein v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Steven Paul Scheiterlein v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In determining whether consent was voluntary, we examine “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).
Nicolas Wilcox Hult v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In determining whether consent was voluntary, we examine “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 v. Bernard 844 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bernard 844 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
Whether consent is voluntary is determined by examining the “totality of the circumstances.”
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“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.”
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
Sanchez v. State 816 N.W.2d 550 Minn. 2012
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
As indicated above, our supreme court has previously held that Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution is “textually identical to the Fourth Amendment” and that decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the Fourth Amendment are “inherently persuasive.” Wiegand, d at 132 ; (indicating that Article 1, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, precluding unreasonable searches and seizures, “is identical to the provision against unreasonable searches and seizures found in the Fourth Am
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
But 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 v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
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
ANALYSIS I. “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 v. Flermoen 785 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Flermoen 785 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Krenik 774 N.W.2d 178 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
I. “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 v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
“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 v. Kail 760 N.W.2d 16 Minn. Ct. App. 2009