Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Larsen, 650 N.W.2d 144.

37 citing documents.

Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, vs. City of Minneapolis, Respondent, Poverty & Race Research Action ... Minn. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Michael Allan Carbo, Jr. 6 N.W.3d 114 Minn. 2024
See Leonard, d at 159 (protection from unreasonable hotel registry searches); (protecting the reasonable expectation of privacy of short-term social guests); Carter, d at 211 (protection from unreasonable dog sniffs of storage units); (protection from warrantless searches of fish houses); Ascher v. Comm’r of Pub.
Court of Appeals Thissen, J. Concurring, Anderson, J., Gildea, C.J. Fletcher Properties, Inc., et al., Minn. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(quoting Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478, 48 S. Ct. 564, 572 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)) ; United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 706-07, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 2644 (1983) (stating that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable government intrusions into their le
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
City of Golden Valley v. Wiebesick 899 N.W.2d 152 Minn. 2017
They rely on three cases in particular: Carter, d at 202-03 (departing from federal precedent to hold that the warrantless use of drug-detection dogs outside of a self-storage unit violated the Minnesota Constitution); (holding that a conservation officer’s warrantless entry into an ice fishing house “in the absence of express consent or other circumstance justifying entry” was unreason *165 able under both the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution); and Ascher, d at 184 (dep
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Application for an Administrative Search Warrant, City of Golden Valley v. Jason Wiebesick, Jacki Wiebesick, … 881 N.W.2d 143 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ascher v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
( 150 (Minn.2002) (ellipses in original)).
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and a court “will exercise its power to declare a statute unconstitutional with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.”
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
holding that an owner and occupant of a fish house has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Minnesota Constitution and that this expectation is violated when a conservation officer enters without consent, a warrant, or probable cause, is also not pertinent to our analysis of a facial challenge to
State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
State v. Davis 732 N.W.2d 173 Minn. 2007
As part of this particularized inquiry, Minnesota courts have balanced “the nature and significance of the intrusion on the individual’s privacy interests * * * against the gravity of the public concerns it serves and the degree to which the conduct at issue advances the public interest.” 150 (Minn. 2002) (ruling that the warrantless search of a fish house that was not supported by probable cause was unreasonable).
State v. Hartmann 700 N.W.2d 449 Minn. 2005
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
(holding that warrantless entry into ice-fishing house violated Fourth Amendment because the structure is “erected and equipped to protect its occupants from the elements and often provid[es] eating, sleeping, and other facilities”).
State v. Hartmann 681 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Hartmann 681 N.W.2d 690 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
State v. Tennin 674 N.W.2d 403 Minn. 2004
Statutes are presumed constitutional and will be declared unconstitutional “with extreme caution and only when absolutely necessary.” (citation omitted).
State v. Garcia 670 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Garcia 670 N.W.2d 297 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
State v. Harris 667 N.W.2d 911 Minn. 2003
Statutes are presumed constitutional, and we will exercise our power to declare a statute unconstitutional “with extreme caution,” and only when there is no reasonable alternative construction available.
State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003