Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pederson-Maxwell, 619 N.W.2d 777.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“[T]he automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not have a separate exigency requirement.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
consensual warrantless sniff inside a vehicle by a narcotics- detection dog is a search for which law enforcement must have probable cause to believe will result in a discovery 14 of evidence or contraband.6 –69 (Minn. 2023) (explaining that probable cause is required to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle); (holding that “[a]n officer with probable cause may make a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle”).
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(stating that a constitutional challenge to the admission of evidence must be raised at the omnibus hearing to be timely).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(concluding that drug -sniffing dog’s alert to the presence of controlled substances in a motor vehicle provided probable cause for lawful warrantless search under the automobile-exception to the warrant requirement).
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“In order for constitutional challenges to the admission of evidence to be timely, objections to such evidence must be raised at the omnibus hearing.”) Accordingly, the arguments are not reviewable on direct appeal.
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faron Wayne Ruel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Pederson–Maxwell
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149, 45 S. Ct. 280, 283-84 (1925)
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. 14 Pederson-Maxwell
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
As to the search of Thompson’s vehicle following the dog’s alert, “[a] law enforcement officer may make a warrantless search of an automobile when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband.”
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Lynn DeMarais Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danielle Lynn DeMarais Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rasmussen v. Tahash, 272 Minn. 539, 550-51, see also State v. Pederson–Maxwell, (noting that “[i]n order for constitutional challenges to the admission of evidence to be timely, objections to such evidence must be raised at the omnibus hearing” in the form of a pretrial motion to suppress); (holding that defendant w
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Expose, Jr. 849 N.W.2d 427 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 raised at an omnibus hearing to be timely, d 777, 780 (Minn. App. 2000), Expose raised an evidentiary objection based on privilege.
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. Frank 650 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Frank 650 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(stating that searches of motor vehicles when there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband do not violate the warrant requirement); Hatton, d at 232 (stating that searches conducted with consent and without a warrant do not violate the warrant requirement).
State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Probable cause is defined as “some showing by evidence which fairly and reasonably tends to show the existence of the facts alleged.” (quotation omitted).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by