Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Askerooth, 681 N.W.2d 353.

363 citing documents.

Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Carlester Powell Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An officer may expand the scope of the stop if the incremental intrusion is tied to and justified by “(1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable 3 cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Nathan Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Alexander Nathan Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Police may expand the scope of a stop without violating the Fourth Amendment if the additional intrusion is “tied to and justified by one of the following: (1) the original legitimate purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or (3) reasonableness, as defined in Terry.” see Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S. Ct. at 1880 (stating that a “police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Wayne Hexom Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Wayne Hexom Minn. Ct. App. 2015
IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, and any evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 415-16 (1963); d 353, 370 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
5 see also Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1614 (2015) (affirming Terry principles apply to traffic stops).
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 416 (1963)
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine whether, as a matter of law, the district court erred in suppressing or not suppressing the evidence.”
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Chad William Mosher v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Delbert Keith Sybrandt Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 416 (1963)
Chad William Mosher v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10, and any evidence obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure must be suppressed, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 415-16 (1963); d 353, 370 (Minn. 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Garry Leroy Gehrke Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Second, we ask whether the actions of the police during the stop were reasonably related to and justified by the circumstances that gave rise to the stop in the first place.” (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 (1968)) (other citations omitted).
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Kyle Dean McCLAIN, Appellant 862 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
When the facts are not in dispute and the district court’s decision is a question of law, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (quotation omitted); (“When reviewing a pretrial order on a motion to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine whether, as a matter of law, the district court erred in suppressing or not suppressing the evidence.”).
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
Warrantless searches are presumed unreasonable, and any evidence acquired as a result must be suppressed, Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 415-16 (1963)
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christine Marie McGinty Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Daniel Garcia-Mendoza v. 2003 Chevy Tahoe, Vin 1GNEC13V23R143453, Plate 235JBM Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Christine Marie McGinty Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S. Ct. 407, 416 (1963)
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(citing Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 111 n. 6, 98 S. Ct. 330, 333 n.6 (1977)).
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Yee Leng Vue Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The scope and duration of an investigatory stop may be expanded only if doing so would be “reasonably related to the investigation of an offense lawfully discovered or suspected during the stop,” State v. 6 Askerooth, and only if the officer “develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion” concerning the additional offenses “within the time necessary to resolve the originally-suspected offense,’” Diede, d at 845 (quoting Wiegand, d at 136).
State of Minnesota v. Dana James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Dana James McEachern Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The district court reasoned that the warrantless truck search was a reasonable expansion of an undisputedly valid traffic stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)
State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In evaluating the reasonableness of a traffic stop, the subjective intent of the police officer is not a relevant consideration.” –75 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. 1997) (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996), and stating that “under a Whren analysis, any subjective desire by [the officer who made the traffic stop] to seek evidence of other illegal activity would not
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
7 More recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court stated explicitly that its decisions and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court “focus not on the subjective belief of the officer, but rather on the objective basis for the belief that the defendant was engaged in illegal activity.” -75 (Minn. 2004) (citing Whren and stating that “[i]n evaluating the reasonableness of a traffic stop, the subjective intent of the police officer is not a relevant consideration”); -83 (Minn. App. 2009) (citing
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Shawn Elson Randall Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The scope and duration of an investigatory stop may be expanded only if doing so would be “reasonably related to the investigation of an offense lawfully discovered or suspected during the stop,” and only to investigate “‘those additional offenses for which the officer develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion within the time necessary to resolve the originally-suspected offense,’” Diede, d at 845 (quoting Wiegand, d at 136).
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cooper Allen Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
4 (stating that the Minnesota Constitution “requires that each incremental intrusion during a traffic stop be individualized to the person toward whom the intrusion is directed and tied to and justified by one of the following: (1) the original purpose of the stop, (2) independent probable cause, or
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. James Irving Dale Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19-20, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 (1968)).
Teric Alan Carlson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014