Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Mitjans, 408 N.W.2d 824.

61 citing documents.

State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
whether or not to suppress evidence because police obtained the evidence in violation of a statute or rule is “quintessentially a judicial issue.” In a number of cases, we have already made clear our judicial intent that a violation of a procedure such as that set forth in Fed.
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
As to the application of the exclusionary rule to a violation of a rule or statute, as opposed to a violation of constitution, (police violation of statute governing right of non-English-speaking suspect to interpreter does not require suppression); -41 (Minn.1978) (nighttime execution of search warrant was a statutory violation not mandating exclusion of the evidence seized).
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Kaul 457 N.W.2d 252 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
State v. Gray 456 N.W.2d 251 Minn. 1990
State v. Baker, 280 Minn. 518, 522
State v. Conklin 444 N.W.2d 268 Minn. 1989
Costillo v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1987
Costillo v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1987
Cf., however, (refusing to automatically exclude confession obtained from Spanish-speaking defendant in violation of statute requiring appointment of interpreter); (questioning whether exclusionary rule should apply to any violation of state law by officer in acting outside