Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Zanter, 535 N.W.2d 624.

223 citing documents.

State v. Lemmer 716 N.W.2d 657 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
ANALYSIS If the state appeals from a pretrial suppression order, it “must ‘clearly’ and unequivocally show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” ().
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. McGrath 706 N.W.2d 532 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
ANALYSIS A. When the state appeals a pretrial suppression order, the state “must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defen *539 dant successfully and that the order constituted error.” ().
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
State v. McLeod 705 N.W.2d 776 Minn. 2005
Critical impact is a threshold issue and “[i]n the absence of critical impact we will not review a pretrial order.” (explaining that although we had previously stated that we decide the evidentiary issue first, making critical impact a threshold issue).
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
Next, in order for the appeal to be considered, as a threshold matter “the state must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” 3 ().
State v. King 690 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. King 690 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Rather than considering the issue de novo, this court’s task is to ensure that there was a “substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Ruoho 685 N.W.2d 451 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Heaney 676 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
If the state appeals pretrial suppression orders, it “ ‘must clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the trial court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” ().
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Jones 678 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2004
State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kolb 674 N.W.2d 238 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
ANALYSIS On appeal from a pretrial suppression order, the state “must ‘clearly and unequivocally’ show both that the [district] court’s order will have a ‘critical impact’ on the state’s ability to prosecute the defendant successfully and that the order constituted error.” ().
State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
We review a determination of probable cause to ensure “that ‘the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.’ ” Harris, d at 788 ().
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
In support of his argument
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
State v. Asfeld 662 N.W.2d 534 Minn. 2003
Asfeld’s first insufficiency argument is that once it is established that several of the evidentiary “links” listed above were improperly admitted, his conviction cannot stand because each link in the circumstantial evidence chain must be proven: “the loss of one link may prevent the state from meeting its evidentiary burden.”
Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Johnson v. State 654 N.W.2d 126 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
“Substantial basis” in this context means a “fair probability,” given the totality of the circumstances, “that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotations and citations omitted).
State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Krenz 634 N.W.2d 231 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
(holding good faith of police cannot cure clear insufficiency of application for warrant).
State v. Rochefort 631 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2001
State v. Rochefort 631 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2001
State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Review is limited to ensuring that “the issuing judge had a ‘substantial basis’ for concluding that probable cause existed.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 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
A search warrant may be issued if, based on the totality of the circumstances, “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quo tation omitted).
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Bradford 618 N.W.2d 782 Minn. 2000
State v. Secord 614 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Secord 614 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Under this test, the issuing judge “is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Dendy 598 N.W.2d 4 Minn. Ct. App. 1999