Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Lozar, 458 N.W.2d 434.

27 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
warrant’s issuance.” rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Constructive possession occurs “where the inference is strong that the defendant at one time physically possessed the [item] or exercised dominion and control over it.” State v. Lozar , rev. denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Id.; State v. Lozar , -40 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See (holding that 50 pounds of marijuana, a large number of small packages containing marijuana, a scale, plastic bags, and over $5,000 in cash was sufficient evidence 11 to support the jury’s finding of intent to sell), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
463, 472 (1976) (affirming conviction based on evidence that marijuana was found in closet of bedroom where defendant had frequently stayed as house guest and had left his belongings); - 09 (Minn. App. 2013) (affirming conviction based on evidence that cocaine was found in center glove compartment of vehicle that defendant had been driving); 441 (Minn. App. 1990) (affirming conviction based on evidence that marijuana was found in defendant’s garage, basement, and refrigerator), review denied 17
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Andrew Bursch Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding there was “an overwhelming probability” defendant exercised dominion and control over marijuana seized from house and garage defendant jointly owned with husband), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Pierre Corey Stewart, Appellant.. Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Porte, d at 309; review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Marvin Boyenga Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The exclusionary rule does not apply here because the exclusionary rule prohibits only the “introduction of evidence seized during an unlawful 11 search.” (emphasis added), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
648, 651 , 107 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Hanson 790 N.W.2d 198 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Denison 607 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Brady 569 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Brady 569 N.W.2d 433 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
review denied (Minn. July 31, 1990), a “true confirmatory search” requires suppression of the later-obtained evidence.
State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Lieberg 553 N.W.2d 51 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
*56 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)); (quoting both Gates and Minnesota precedent in a case involving a tainted affidavit), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Benson 484 N.W.2d 46 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
1056, 1059-63 , 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967) (credibility of unidentified informant established by officer’s testimony that informant had proven reliable in the past); State v. Daniels, 294 Minn. 323, 329 , -07 (1972) (credibility sufficiently established by statement that informant’s information “recently resulted in narcotic arrests and convictions”); (illegal search did not invalidate subsequent warrant where warrant was supported by probable cause from an independent source), pet.