Cited by

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

495 citing documents.

Followed Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
State v. Mahr 701 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Mahr 701 N.W.2d 286 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lopez 698 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Lopez 698 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
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.”
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
(“In reviewing [district] court rulings on fourth amendment issues, this court accepts the [district] court’s findings of fact, unless clearly erroneous, but independently applies fourth amendment case law to the facts so found.”), review
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Baxter 686 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
see also Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. BEARDEMPHL 674 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. BEARDEMPHL 674 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
“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. Bunce 669 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bunce 669 N.W.2d 394 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of M.A.K. 667 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of M.A.K. 667 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Balenger 667 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Balenger 667 N.W.2d 133 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. Fort 660 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2003
State v. Fort 660 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2003
State v. Bergerson 659 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bergerson 659 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Goebel 654 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Goebel 654 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
‘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. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Smith 652 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Smith 652 N.W.2d 546 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
When reviewing a pretrial suppression order, “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. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by