Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hummel, 483 N.W.2d 68.

122 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Gregory Thomas Wandzel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Thomas Wandzel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[W]arrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall under an established exception.”
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Benjamin Paul Adams Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Eddie Niles Hubbard Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The in camera approach strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in 18 obtaining all relevant evidence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Leslie Lindsey Treadwell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
To be entitled to an in camera review, the defendant must establish a “‘plausible showing’ that the information sought would be ‘both material and favorable to his defense.’” (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 n.15, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002 n.15 (1987)).
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Babafemi Adewale Odukale Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephen Charles Iepson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Benjamin Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aaron Benjamin Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[W]arrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall under an established exception.”
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Fitz Gurley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Fredrick Fitz Gurley Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“Warrantless searches and seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall under an established exception.” (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 514 (1967)).
William Haugen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
William Haugen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507 (1967)).
State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(finding that a third party who possesses common authority over the premises may consent to a search).
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Earvin Ainwin Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“‘The in camera approach strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in obtaining all relevant evidence.’” d 68, 72 (Minn. 1992) (); see also Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002-03 (1987).
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Fairbanks 842 N.W.2d 297 Minn. 2014
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
State v. Hokanson 821 N.W.2d 340 Minn. 2012
This in camera review is not a right, however, and the defendant must first establish a “ ‘plausible showing’ that the information sought would be ‘both material and favorable to his defense.’ ” (quoting Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 , 58 n. 15, 107 S.Ct.
State v. Hahn 799 N.W.2d 25 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
In those cases, we have required “some plausible showing that the information sought would be both material and favorable to his defense.” State v. Hum- *685 mel, (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); -73 (Minn.2008).
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Evans 756 N.W.2d 854 Minn. 2008
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
Determining whether exigent circumstances exist under the “totality of the circumstances” is a “flexible approach that encompasses all relevant circumstances.” (internal quotation marks omitted).
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
State v. Burrell 697 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 2005
(denying in camera review because defendant provided “no theories on how the [confidential medical] file could be related to the defense or why the file was reasonably likely to contain information related to the case”).
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
State v. Reese 692 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2005
“The in camera approach strikes a fairer balance between the interest of the privilege holder in having his confidences kept and the interest of the criminal defendant in obtaining all relevant evidence that might help in his defense.” -72 (Minn.1992) ().
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
-73 (Minn.1992) (quotation omitted).
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Schluter 653 N.W.2d 787 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Lee 645 N.W.2d 459 Minn. 2002