Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Rochefort, 631 N.W.2d 802.

146 citing documents.

State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
State v. Curtis 921 N.W.2d 342 Minn. 2018
See State v. Rochefort , , 805 (Minn. 2001) (remanding the case to the court of appeals for application of the correct standard of review).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 802, 804 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
–05 (Minn. 2001); see also Gates, 462 U.S. at 236, 103 S. Ct. at 2331 (“[A]fter -the-fact scrutiny by c ourts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review.”).
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Gundy 915 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Rochefort , , 804 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“[W]hen reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’s determination great deference” and should consider only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
When reviewing a district court’s probable-cause determination made in connection with the i ssuance of a search warrant, this court’s task is to dete rmine whether the issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An appellate court reviews a district court’s decision to issue a warrant only to consider whether the issuing judge had a subs tantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
Compassion Over Killing, Inc., complainant, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“An appellate court reviews a district court ’s decision to issue a warrant only to consider whether the iss uing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” State v. Rochefort
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis James McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dennis James McCormick Minn. Ct. App. 2017
DECISION When reviewing whether there was probable cause to issue a search warrant, we “afford the district court’s determination great deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“When reviewing a judge’s decision to issue a search warrant, our only consideration is whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” d 380, 384 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O�Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Wyatt Morris Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Wyatt Morris Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
When reviewing a judge’s decision to issue a search warrant, our only consideration’ is whether the issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]hen reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’s determination great deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Mark Anthony Sanders Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“We have repeatedly held that, when reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’s determination great 4 deference.” (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dana Jerome Duncombe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When reviewing probable cause to issue a warrant, we give “the district court’s determination great deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert James Fallin Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]hen reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant, an appellate court should afford the district court’s determination great deference” and should consider only “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Fredrick Aguirre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When reviewing whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant, we “afford the district court’s determination great deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Jeremy Fredrick Aguirre Minn. Ct. App. 2015
6 Where a party challenges a district court’s issuance of a search warrant, “[the] appellate court reviews [the] district court’s decision to issue a warrant only to consider whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Thomas James Mitchell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Instead, we “afford the district court’s determination great deference.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Keith Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Keith Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alondre Ramone Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Dane Joseph Riley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Timothy George Clark Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“An appellate court reviews a district court’s decision to issue a warrant only to consider whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by