Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Rauen v. PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER, 655 N.W.2d 803.

26 citing documents.

State of Minnesota (A25-1353) v. Elizabeth Erin Korth, State of Minnesota (A25-1524), vs. Emily Noel Snyder Minn. Ct. App. 2026
The Minnesota Supreme Court applied this test to a
State of Minnesota v. Weheliye Abdulcadir Abucar Gaal Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-10 (Minn. 2003) (concluding that officers had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle within three hours of murder based on information concerning type and color of vehicle and descriptions of persons suspected of murder).
State of Minnesota v. James Michael Dahlin Minn. Ct. App. 2025
dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.” We disagree.4 “A protective search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the officer possesses a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.”
State of Minnesota v. Luke Adam Eckman Minn. Ct. App. 2023
d 803, 809 (Minn. 2003).
Shane Todd Orth v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Gregory James Head Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Minnesota courts have routinely held that an officer’s decision to stop a vehicle that is similar to a suspect vehicle “ cannot be considered mere caprice or whim.”
State of Minnesota v. Shane Kenneth Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2021
810 (Minn. 2003) (concluding reasonable, articulable suspicion supported stop despite difference in number of vehicle occupants and color of vehicle and that suspects were stopped six to eight miles from robbery ); State v. 2 At oral argument, appellant conceded
State of Minnesota v. Christian John Donnelly Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Need for immediate action Because the trooper found herself in a situation in which the vehicle occupants acted increasingly hostile, may have been attempting to conceal something, and backup would not arrive for several minutes , the trooper could have made the reasonable inference that 8 respondent “may [have] gain[ed] immediate control of a weapon.”
State of Minnesota v. Guytrell Edward Hawkins Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 803, 809 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted) .
State of Minnesota v. Geoffrey Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
d 803, 809 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Lee Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(quotation omitted); (requiring investigatory stop to be based on more than “mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Jason James Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S. Ct. 690, 695 (1981)
State of Minnesota v. Lamar King Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See Yang, d at 551; –10 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Michael Galler Minn. Ct. App. 2017
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S. Ct. 690, 695 (1981)
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Justin Stephen Ries v. State of Minnesota 889 N.W.2d 308 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Henry James Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In similar circumstances, the supreme court has commented, “Given that considerable discretion will be given to an officer’s decision to conduct an investigatory stop, the decision to stop a vehicle very similar in body style but slightly lighter in color cannot be considered mere caprice or whim.”
State of Minnesota v. Elliott Patrick Ketz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“A protective search of the passenger compartment of the vehicle .
State of Minnesota v. Darreon Jonye Harding Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Castillo-Alvarez 836 N.W.2d 527 Minn. 2013
Second, Scales serves the substantive purpose of discouraging “unfair and psychologically coercive police tactics.” Scales, d at 591 ; , 811 n. 3 (Minn.2003) (discussing the substantive purpose).
State v. Hollins 789 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968))
State v. Yang 774 N.W.2d 539 Minn. 2009
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
ompartment of the vehicle, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden,” if the officer has a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity” and the officer “possesses a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of a weapon.” -10 (Minn.2003) (internal quotations omitted).
State v. Lopez 698 N.W.2d 18 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
“Reasonable, artic-ulable suspicion requires a showing that the stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted).
State v. BEARDEMPHL 674 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
This requires only that the stop was “not the product of mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity.” (quotation omitted).