Cited by

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

363 citing documents.

State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
jn Minnes0ta) we have held that the “principles and framework of Terry [apply when] evaluating the reasonableness of [searches and] seizures during traffic stops even when a minor law has been violated.”
State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
State v. Clark 722 N.W.2d 460 Minn. 2006
We have stated that “[i]t is our responsibility as Minnesota’s highest court to independently safeguard for the people of Minnesota the protections embodied in our constitution.”
State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
We have repeatedly stated that we will not “cavalierly construe our state constitution more expansively than the United States Supreme Court has construed the federal constitution.” -27 (Minn.1985); Wiegand, Harris, d at 98
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
And most recently, we held that a squad-car detention and a police officer’s request for consent to search were an unlawful seizure that exceeded article I, section 10 protections.