Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Souto, 578 N.W.2d 744.

163 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. John Edward Yort Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]here must be specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.”
State of Minnesota v. David Barrientoz Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8 It is true that appellate courts’ “consider ation [of probable cause ] is limited to the information presented in the affidavit, rather than to the information actually possessed by the police.”
State of Minnesota v. Archie Leon Price Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“[T]here must 11 be specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.” State v. Souto
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
State v. Harvey 932 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 2019
(quoting State v. Souto , , 747 (Minn. 1998) ); see also, e.g. , Massachusetts v. Upton , 466 U.S. 727 , 732-33, 104 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Isiah Kente Shivers Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Although Shivers does not explicitly argue that the search war rant failed to establish a nexus between drug activity and his residence
State of Minnesota v. Michael Octarious Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Nehemiah Jovan Richardson Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Souto , -48 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Lee Fettig Minn. Ct. App. 2019
t he court reasoned that the “evidence obtained from the garbage pull [did] not rise to the level of ongoing criminal activity.” The court also noted that “drugs are disposable”; that the “evidence obtained .
State of Minnesota v. Brady Ray Veselka Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota v. Cain Buster Waltermann Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In determining whether a sufficient nexus exists, “information linking the crime to the place to be searched and the freshness of the inf ormation” are relevant factors, as well as “[t] he reliability of the source of the information .”
State of Minnesota v. Amy Kathleen Sparks Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Factors relating to staleness include whether there is any indication of ongoing criminal activity, whether the 6 articles sought are innocuous or incriminating, whether the property sought is easily disposable or transferable, and whether the items sought are of enduring utility.” .
State of Minnesota v. Machelle Jean Frisbie Minn. Ct. App. 2019
462 U.S. at 238 -39, 103 S. Ct. at 2332 (quotation omitted) ; see also State v. Souto , (applying Gates).
State of Minnesota v. Tommy Earl Upshaw Minn. Ct. App. 2019
8 See State v. Souto , (concluding that because information in a search warrant was stale, the w arrant lacked probable cause).
State of Minnesota v. Luis Miguel Gallegos Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 6 2317, 2332 (1983)).
State of Minnesota v. Harley Harlen Bishop Minn. Ct. App. 2019
’” (quoting Sgro v. United States , 287 U.S. 206, 210, 53 S. Ct. 138, 140 (1932)).
State of Minnesota v. Mario Dewayne Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Andrew Timothy Barnett Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(vacating a conviction where evidence should have been suppressed).
State of Minnesota v. Jeremia Michael Roberts Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(ordering conviction be vacated where evidence should have been suppressed).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Kenneth Kmetz Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Daryll Gene Cagle Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 307, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 1650 (1967); Yarbrough, d at 622; -48 (Minn. 1998).
State of Minnesota v. Oscar Barrios-German Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Phillip Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Terry Lee West Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Mora Flores Minn. Ct. App. 2017
al” who used the property described by the CI as a “stash house.” 7 Freshness of information Flores also argues that the search wa rrant was not supported by probable cause because “the information wa s not sufficiently fresh.” “E lements bearing on [probable cause] include information linking the crime to the place to be searched and the freshness of the information.”
State of Minnesota v. David Martin Arth Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Brenda Kay Olson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Factors relating to staleness include whether there is any indication of ongoing criminal activity, whether the articles sought are innocuous or incriminating, whether the property sought is easily disposable or transferable, and whether the items sought are of enduring utility.”
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Justin Thomas Keodouangdy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The warrant application and supporting affidavit must include “specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.”
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O’Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jared S. O’Donnell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Albert William Brown Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kyle Mark Watson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Finally, citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S. Ct. 2317 (1983), appellant argues that, even if the tip was reliable, the dog sniff outside his apartment was impermissible because the informant only reported that appellant had marijuana in his garage, not in his apartment.
State of Minnesota v. Wyatt Morris Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Wyatt Morris Howard Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Elements bearing on this probability determination include information establishing a nexus between the crime, objects to be seized and the place to be searched.” Jenkins, d at 223 ( and 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 3.7(d) (4th ed. 2004)).
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Steven Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Gerald Steven Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
–48 (Minn. 1998) (“This court has historically required a direct connection, or nexus, between the alleged crime and the particular place to be searched, particularly in cases involving the search of a residence for evidence of drug activity.”).
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Michael Kepner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“In determining probable cause, the [judge] must consider the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons supplying hearsay information.” 750 (Minn. 1998) (quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Steven Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Steven Jacobs Minn. Ct. App. 2016
-49 (Minn. 1998) (reversing conviction based on evidence obtained during search for which the warrant lacked probable cause).
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Nathan Benvie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Joshua Nathan Benvie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
in which the supreme court concluded that there was an insufficient nexus between the appellant’s 7 suspected drug-trafficking and her residence.
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Andre Thomas Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
whether the property sought is easily disposable or transferable, and whether the items sought are of enduring utility.”
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015