Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Richardson, 622 N.W.2d 823.

106 citing documents.

Michael David Groschen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, Minnesota courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the compe tence of an untrained person.” see also Appelgate v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, Minne sota courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.” State v. Richardson
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(stating that an officer’s personal observations, coupled with police dispatch information, may provide a sufficient particularized and objective basis to suspect the driver is engaged in criminal activity).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 536 (2014)
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Mary Lynn Boline Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 536 (2014)
State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Sean Adam Peake Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In assessing reasonable 5 suspicion, Minnesota courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Devin Keith Barner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Devin Keith Barner Minn. Ct. App. 2016
he pretrial ruling had a critical impact “When the state appeals a pretrial order, it must show clearly and unequivocally (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a ‘critical impact’ on its ability to prosecute the case.” ( ); see also Minn. R. Crim.
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Darren Gregory Melges Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In assessing reasonable suspicion, Minnesota courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to 5 make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
Carole Jean Halverson v. State of Minnesota, and State of Minnesota v. Carole Jean Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Carole Jean Halverson v. State of Minnesota, and State of Minnesota v. Carole Jean Halverson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In assessing reasonable suspicion, Minnesota courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State of Minnesota v. William Lee Hutchins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. William Lee Hutchins, Jr. Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In assessing reasonable suspicion, Minnesota courts “consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.” (discussing reasonable suspicion in context of initial investigatory stop).
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Robert Carl Thoensen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Heien, 135 S. Ct. at 536; d 823, 825 (Minn. 2001).
State of Minnesota v. Ann Marie Hoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ann Marie Hoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
When analyzing whether a stop is justified, a district court should consider “the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erik Edward Malmquist Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erik Edward Malmquist Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In determining whether a stop is justified, we consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(relying on vehicle crossing a fog line to establish reasonable suspicion 9 for suspecting the driver of criminal activity); (incorporating the time of day into the probable cause determination
Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Lester Leroy Hiltz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Del Roy Lloyd Wendt, III v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Del Roy Lloyd Wendt, III v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When analyzing whether a stop is justified, a district court should consider “the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State of Minnesota v. Sharleen Leslie Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Sharleen Leslie Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“In determining whether a stop is justified, we consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State of Minnesota v. George Kimuhu Gatungu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Kimuhu Gatungu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
When considering the totality of the circumstances, the court acknowledges that “trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[W]e consider the totality of the circumstances and acknowledge that trained law enforcement officers are permitted to make inferences and deductions that would be beyond the competence of an untrained person.”
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
See, *363 (Minn.2001) (applying Terry principles to traffic stop when erratic driving indicated violation of “any number of Minnesota statutes”).