Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Schrupp, 625 N.W.2d 844.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
that leads the officer reasonably to conclude in light of [their] experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
James Kevin Obowa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
t he did not want to interact with the officers supports nothing more than a hunch, a mere whim, or a guess that [he] had violated or was about to violate some law.” -54 (Minn. App. 2018) (considering as a factor for reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant had looked away from the officers and started to walk away quickly); (stating that an officer’s conclusion that a driver “might be trying to avoid [them],” based on facts that the vehicle was being driven by someone other than the reg
Henry James Johnson, Jr., Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“The officer need not be absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Schrupp , rev. denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
Robert Herman Larsen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
But while an officer “need not be absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity,” he cannot rely on “an inchoate and unpartic ularized suspicion or hunch.” State v. Schrupp , (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
848 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, the police officer should be able to articulate that the nature, quality, repetitio n, or pattern of the circumstances leading up to the stop beco me “so unusual and suspicio us that they support at least one inference of the possibility of criminal activity.” -48 (Minn. App. 2001) , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
Kathleen Margaret Eileen Ochs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The officer need not be absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Appellant relies on State v. Schrupp to support his position, arguing that this court in that case held there was no reasonable suspicion justifying a search when a “driver pulled quickly into a driveway.” d 844, 848 (Minn. App. 2001) , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001) .
Garrett Thomas Cekalla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“The officer need not be absolutely cer tain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an inchoate and unparticularized suspicio n or hunch.” State v. Schrupp , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001) (quotation omitted); (“ A hunch, without additional objectively articulable facts, cannot provide the basis for an investigatory stop.”).
, A18-0348 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
To establish reasonable suspicion, an officer only needs to articulate particular and objective facts that “by their nature, quality, repetition, or pattern become so unusual and suspicious that they support at least one inference of the possibility of criminal activity.” -48 (Minn. App. 2001) (emphasis added), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
John Cortland Robinson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“The officer 5 need not be absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1883 (1968)) (quotation marks omitted) , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001) ; see also State v. Harris , (“ A hunch, without additional objectively articulable facts, c annot provide the ba sis for an in
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The police may seize a person so long as the facts “support at least one inference of the possibility of criminal activity.” State v. Schrupp , 47-48 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. 5 Schrupp, (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1873 (1968)) , review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Schrupp , -47 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
-47 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“The officer need not be absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Creighton Thomas Penn Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Instead, the officer only needs to have “articulable objective facts” that support “at least one inference of the possibility of criminal activity.” review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Deundrick Demon McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Deundrick Demon McIntosh Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that an investigatory stop “is reasonable when the officer possesses at the inception of the stop articulable objective facts that .
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Antwan Hegwood Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Maurice Antwan Hegwood Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Terry, 392 U.S. at 6-7, 88 S. Ct. at 1871-72; see also State v. 7 Schrupp, -48 (Minn. App. 2001) (reviewing facts of Terry and emphasizing that officer waited and watched until hunch “ripened” into reasonable suspicion), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See State v. Koppi, 6 -64 (Minn. 2011) (); -47 (Minn. App. 2001) (stating that an “officer’s subjective good-faith belief” that “criminal activity may be afoot” is not sufficient and the officer “must articulate specific facts” that reasonably justify the stop), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
The officer need not be absolutely certain of the possibility of criminal activity, but he cannot satisfy the test of reasonableness by relying on an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or ‘hunch.’ ” -47 (Minn.App.2001) (citations omitted), review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).
State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
review denied (Minn. July 24, 2001).