Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite City of St. Louis Park v. Berg, 433 N.W.2d 87.

19 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Rahma Abukar Abdi Minn. Ct. App. 2026
(“This court has rejected the contention that evidence of a defendant’s resistance to an illegal arrest must be suppressed as forbidden fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation by the police.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Louis Park v. Berg , (“This court has rejected the contention that evidence of a defendant’s resistance to an illegal arrest must be suppressed as forbidden fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation by the police.”); (“Minnesota law does not recognize [a] defendant’s asserted
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(rejecting “the contention that evidence of a defendant’s resistance to an illegal arrest must be 10 suppressed as forbidden fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation by the police”); (“Minnesota law does n
State of Minnesota v. Crystal Ann Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Crystal Ann Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
the arresting officers’ violent conduct precluded her convictions.
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Phillip Harding Minn. Ct. App. 2024
d 87, 90 (Minn. 1988); see also Warndahl, d at 776 (explaining that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct).
State of Minnesota v. Elisa Marie Wier Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alfonso Carillo Buenaventura v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(stating that although a d efendant may “offer evidence that his forceful response to the illegal arrest was in self -defense,” there is no “additional constitutional right to resist an illegal arrest”).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Carlester Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Carlester Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
for the proposition that the evidence must be excluded.
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(holding that evidence of defendant’s resistance to arrest may not be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree); -69 (Minn.App.1986) (holding an illegal arrest does not require suppression of evidence of a crime committed in response to the arrest), rev’d in part on ot
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
(holding that evidence of defendant’s resistance to arrest may not be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree); -69 (Minn.App.1986) (holding an illegal arrest does not require suppression of evidence of a crime committed in response to the arrest), rev’d in part on ot
State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
-90 (Minn.1988) (assault on police officers who illegally entered defendant’s house should not be suppressed); (assault and obstructing legal process evidence were not suppressible), rev’d on other grounds, , 565 n. 2 (Minn.1987).
Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety 473 N.W.2d 828 Minn. 1991