Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Doyle, 336 N.W.2d 247.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
If a defendant seeks to invalidate a search warrant under Franks, the defendant must show that “(1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth, and (2) the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” (quotation omitted)
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
and decide whether the affidavit still establishes probable cause.” (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155- 56 (1978)).
State of Minnesota v. Lyndon Akeem Wiggins Minn. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Lyndon Akeem Wiggins Minn. 2024
Id.; (holding that the value of an affiant’s statement that the defendant had been dealing drugs for years was lessened because the statement was “conclusory and d[id] not provide a clue as to the source of the information”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g., Souto, d at 749 (holding that “the officer’s statement that ‘he [knew]’ that Souto was involved in the possession and/or distribution of drugs on a wide scale was too vague and conclusory to bolster the state’s positi on that Souto was a drug dealer”) (alteration in original) ; State v. Doyle , (holding that the value of an affiant’s statement that “he knew” that the defendant had been 8 dealing drugs for several years was diminished because of its conclusory nature and its failure to
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
438 U.S. at 155-56, 98 S. Ct. at 2676; (“[I]f it is established that the affiant deliberately falsified or recklessly disregarded the truth in his affidavit, then the [district] court should set aside the false statements (or supply the omissions) and decide whether the affidavit still establishes probable cause.” (footnote omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2676 (1978); 252 (Minn. 1983) (including omissions as a form of misrepresentation).
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Dexter 929 N.W.2d 455 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Andersen , , 327 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted); see also State v. Doyle , , 250 (Minn. 1983).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Instead, he cites State v. Doyle, which stated that the value of a conclusory statement was “lessened” because it did not “provide a clue as to the source of the information or the manner in which the information was obtained.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
438 U.S. 154, 155 -56, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 2676 (1978); 252 (Minn. 1983) 7 (including omissions as a form of misrepresentation).
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Willie Ester Waters Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(concluding a warrant issued to search two, unconnected apartments lacked 11 probable cause as to one of the apartments because affiant-officers did not inform the magistrate of their doubts as to the information relating to that apartment and the warr
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Wood 845 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Andersen 784 N.W.2d 320 Minn. 2010
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Akers 636 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Akers 636 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
249-50 n. 1 (Minn. 1983).
State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
we held that the value of the affiant’s statement that he knew that the defendant had been dealing drugs for a number of years was diminished because of its conclusory nature and its failure to indicate the source of the information.
State v. McCloskey 451 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. McCloskey 451 N.W.2d 225 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
at 423; , 249-50 n. 1 (Minn.1983).
State v. Smith 448 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Smith 448 N.W.2d 550 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Arbitration Between Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass'n Ex Rel. Pince v. State, Department of Public Safety 437 N.W.2d 670 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
State v. Gabbert 411 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Gabbert 411 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
(if it is established that the affiant deliberately falsified or recklessly disregarded the truth in his affidavit, then the trial court should set aside the false statements (or supply the omissions) and decide whether the affidavit still establishes probable cause).
State v. Herbst 395 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Herbst 395 N.W.2d 399 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Novak v. State 349 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1984
Novak v. State 349 N.W.2d 830 Minn. 1984
Minnesota cases dealing with the issue of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a search of a particular place include:
State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
State v. Gutberlet 346 N.W.2d 639 Minn. 1984
1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(d) (1978 and 1984 Supp.).
State v. Randa 342 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1984
State v. Randa 342 N.W.2d 341 Minn. 1984
upholding the suppression of evidence on the ground of reckless omission of material information and reckless misrepresentation of other material information.