Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Holmes, 569 N.W.2d 181.

32 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State v. Holmes , d 181, 186–87 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Under the inventory exception, police need neither probable cause nor a warrant to search a vehicle.” State v. Holmes
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Courts give “deference ‘to police caretaking procedures designed to secure and protect vehicles and their contents within police custody.’” State v. Holmes , -87 (Minn. 1997) (quoting Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367, 372, 107 S. Ct. 738, 741 (1987)).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Damien Kent Hallmon Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 181, 188 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Faith Annette Jenson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
ventory search Following a valid impoundment, law enforcement officers conduct a permissible inventory search if “they (1) follow standard procedures in carrying out the search and (2) perform the search, at least in part, for the purpose of obtaining an inventory and not for the sole purpose of investigation.” (stating that “standard procedure[s] .
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See Varnado, d at 892 (holding that frisk for weapons following stop for cracked windshield invalid when it was not based on any probable cause but was conducted because part of officer’s routine procedure before placing person in back of squad car); -89 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 181, 185 (Minn. 1997), to support his contention that a mere “lane violation” is not a serious enough offense to support an investigatory stop.
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Alvarado Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(requiring that inventory searches must be performed in accordance with standard procedures and at least in part to obtain an inventory).
State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Under the inventory exception, police need neither probable cause nor a warrant to search a vehicle.”
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Campbell 756 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(stating that the dismissal of a charge following suppression of all the evidence clearly meets the critical impact element).
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
(“The dismissal of the charge following a suppression of all the evidence clearly meets the critical impact element ⅜ ⅜ ⅜.”).
State v. Volkman 675 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Volkman 675 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
(stating dismissal of charge following suppression of “all the evidence” meets critical impact element).
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
State v. Varnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
-89 (Minn.1997) (holding that where officer's sole motivation for conducting inventory search of automobile was to discover a gun, the search was invalid).
State v. Yarnado 582 N.W.2d 886 Minn. 1998
-89 (Minn.1997) (holding that where officer’s sole motivation for conducting inventory search of automobile was to discover a gun, the search was invalid).