DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re the Welfare of B.R.K., 658 N.W.2d 565.

94 citing documents.

  • 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
  • State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State of Minnesota v. Miguel Angel Martinez-Duran Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    “It is well-settled law that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes and thus have the capacity to challenge warrantless entries and searches of their homes.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alec Haefs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Joseph Alec Haefs Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    “It is well-settled law that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes and thus have the capacity to challenge warrantless entries and searches of their homes.”
  • State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
  • State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
    In determining whether a defendant’s rights have been violated under the Fourth Amendment, we apply a two-part test, first considering whether the defendant ‘“exhibited an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the’ cell phone records” and then “determin[ing] whether that expectation is reasonable.” Gail, d at 860 ().
  • State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Johnson 831 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Setinich 822 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Setinich 822 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    An individual may invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment by showing that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched, and that his expectation is reasonable.” (quotation and citation omitted).
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
  • McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
  • Distinguished McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 816 N.W.2d 636 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    See, (holding that short-term social guest has reasonable expectation of privacy and standing to object to warrantless search of home).
  • State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (“[W]e are free to interpret the Minnesota Constitution as affording greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than the United States Constitution, but do not do so cavalierly.”).
  • State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Perez 779 N.W.2d 105 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (); see also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 143-44 n. 12, 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    Appellant urges us to follow “Minnesota law [which] recognizes that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes and thus have the capacity to challenge warrantless entries and searches,” -72 (Minn.2003), and Jordan, d at 155-56 .
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Bartylla 755 N.W.2d 8 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
    Gray, d at 256 ; (“When a ‘single factor’ exigent circumstance does not exist, we apply a totality of the circumstances test.”); D.A.G., d at 791 .
  • State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Jordan 742 N.W.2d 149 Minn. 2007
    see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 -44 n. 12, 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
  • Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
  • Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
    In re Welfare of E.D.J., 502 NW.2d at 781 ; Harris, d at 97
  • State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
  • State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
  • Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Henning 666 N.W.2d 379 Minn. 2003
  • State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    Third, we address the Minnesota Supreme Court’s recent decision in where the court held that a short-term social guest in a home had a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient to challenge a warrantless search of that home.