DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Munson, 594 N.W.2d 128.

266 citing documents.

  • Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • Carter v. State 787 N.W.2d 675 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Chavarria-Cruz 784 N.W.2d 355 Minn. 2010
    2350 , 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994))
  • State v. Sanders 775 N.W.2d 883 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Clark 738 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
    137 (Minn.1999) (describing a stop where, based on a tip from a confidential reliable informant that the defendant was transporting "a large amount of crack cocaine” in his vehicle, "the police approached the Blazer with drawn guns, ordered the occupants out of the Blazer, handcuffed the occupants and frisked th
  • State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
    see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 22 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Scanlon 719 N.W.2d 674 Minn. 2006
    endment right against self-incrimination, was violated: First, the court must determine whether the suspect invoked his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation; if so, then “courts may admit responses to further questioning only on finding that [the accused] (a) initiated further discussions with the police, and (b) knowingly and intelligently waived the right invoked.” -39 (Minn.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).
  • State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Paul 716 N.W.2d 329 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
    Due to the exigent circumstances presented by automobiles, there is “a well-established exception to the search warrant requirement for cases involving transportation of contraband goods in motor vehicles.”
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Earl 702 N.W.2d 711 Minn. 2005
  • In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-22 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
    360 , 789 N.E.2d at 266 ; United States v. Holt, 264 F.3d 1215, 1230 (10th Cir.2001) (en banc); -36 (Minn.1999) (stating that “even if a search is supported by probable cause, the scope of the search and any detention of the suspect must still be reasonable.”).
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    1602, 1626 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)
  • State v. Ross 676 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Ross 676 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Riley 667 N.W.2d 153 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Syhavong 661 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Syhavong 661 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Ray 659 N.W.2d 736 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
    When this court reviews the legality of a search, it will not reverse the district court’s findings unless they are “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”
  • State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Waddell 655 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Waddell 655 N.W.2d 803 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
    -36 (Minn. 1999) (holding that vehicle search supported by probable cause must nonetheless be reasonable in the scope of the search and detention of the suspects).
  • In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
  • In Re RJE 642 N.W.2d 708 Minn. 2002
    we noted similar concerns: [W]e are hesitant to apply a harmless error analysis where an appellant has stipulated to the state's facts only to preserve the evidentiary issues for appeal and has not had a chance to challenge the state's evidence or present evidence of his own.
  • State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Hannon 636 N.W.2d 796 Minn. 2001
    In order for a request to be deemed unequivocal, a suspect “ ‘must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer, in the circumstances, would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.’ ” (quoting Davis, 512 U.S. at 459 , 114 S.Ct.
  • In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • In Re the Welfare of R.J.E. 630 N.W.2d 457 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    -44 (Minn.1999) (“[U]nder the facts of this case, we are hesitant to apply a harmless error analysis where an appellant has stipulated to the state’s facts only to preserve the evidentia-ry issues for appeal and has not had a chance to challenge the state’s evidence or present evidence of his own.”) (citing Berkem
  • State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
    IV; Minn. Const. Art. I, § 10