Cited by

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

146 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ejay Freeman Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This court gives great deference to the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause, and our review is limited “to ensuring that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” McGrath, d at 539 ().
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Gene Charles Walters, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Instead, we are to “afford the district court’s determination great deference,” and only “consider whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Erdmann Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vi Doan Huynh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vi Doan Huynh Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Donald Timothy Palardis Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Larry Jermaine McCool 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. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and “demonstrate[ ] a strong preference for searches conducted pursuant to the authority of a warrant.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Simeon Laderick Sharp Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We afford great deference to “a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant.”
State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
When reviewing a district court’s decision to issue a search warrant, our only consideration is whether the judge issuing the warrant “had a substan *223 tial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(determination of probable cause to issue a search warrant turns on “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed”); Mellett, d at 787-88 (district court’s determination regarding custody and necessity of Miranda warning are issues of law that a
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(statute); (warrantless search).
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
The application for the search warrant, “interpreted in a common-sense and realistic manner,” must be found to “contain information which would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the articles sought are located at the place to be searched.” -49 (Minn.1979); (“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.”).
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
-88 (Minn.1999); Papadakis, d at 355 .
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
A district court’s decision to issue a search warrant is reviewed for “whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.”
State v. King 690 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. King 690 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
But “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 deference.”
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
State v. Miller 666 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2003
“[W]hen reviewing a district court’s probable cause determination made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant [we] * * * afford the district court’s determination great deference.”
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002