DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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.

  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
  • State v. McDonough 631 N.W.2d 373 Minn. 2001
    -39 (Minn.1999) (citing Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 , 101 S.Ct.
  • State v. Tomaino 627 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Tomaino 627 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Anderson 620 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Anderson 620 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    In order to conduct a stop for limited investigatory purposes, an officer “must have reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.” (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Rochefort 619 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Rochefort 619 N.W.2d 564 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    “The independent corroboration of even *567 innocent details of an informant’s tip may support a finding of probable cause.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Baumann 616 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Baumann 616 N.W.2d 771 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (noting specific details of CRI’s record not necessary and statement that informant “has been used over several years successfully” may be sufficient to infer CRTs veracity) ().
  • State v. Demry 605 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Demry 605 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -36 (Minn.1999); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Britton 604 N.W.2d 84 Minn. 2000