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 Disciplinary Action Against Druck, 577 N.W.2d 212.

24 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Appellant/Cross-Respondent v. Seneca Warrior Steeprock, Respondent/Cross-Appellant Minn. 2025
  • State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
    The “primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.”
  • State of Minnesota v. Rebecca Julie Malecha Minn. 2024
    Lindquist, d at 871; (“[T]he primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.” (emphasis added)).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
    The reasonableness of the deputy’s probable-cause determination is “an objective inquiry,” and we consider the totality of the facts and circumstances known
  • R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
    timony” because the “reasona bleness test is an objective test”); –31 (Minn. 2014) (stating that “the legality of a pat search” under Terry “depends on an objective ex amination of the totality of the circumstances,” rather than “the actual, subjective beliefs of the officer” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Hardy , (“The reasonableness of the officer’s actions is an objective inquiry; it does not depend on the officer’s subjective frame of mind.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
    “[T]he primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police mis conduct.”
  • William Robert Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    at 363 (quoting State v. Hardy , ).
  • State of Minnesota v. Barry Lee Jacobson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (“When reviewing a challenge under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution on 4 undisputed facts, the reviewing court may independently analyze the facts to determine whether evidence needs to be suppressed as a matter of law.”).
  • State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent. 869 N.W.2d 863 Minn. 2015
    See, (“[Tjhe primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.”)
  • State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Case Minn. Ct. App. 2015
    (reiterating that “the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct” and that by excluding evidence, “we seek to eliminate the incentive for police officers who have detained a person on a Terry stop to overstep the limits of the stop”).
  • Chad William Mosher v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
  • State v. Zornes 831 N.W.2d 609 Minn. 2013
    Zornes argues that, -16 (Minn.1998), a statement alone from investigating officers is sufficient to begin a search, if the statement is made for an investigatory purpose.
  • State v. McDonald-Richards 840 N.W.2d 9 Minn. 2013
    under the clearly erroneous standard, but we review the district court’s legal determinations de novo.” , 843 (Minn.2011)
  • State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
    (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at 357 , 88 S.Ct.
  • State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
    (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. BEARDEMPHL 674 N.W.2d 430 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Bergerson 659 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
    (stating that “the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct” by eliminating temptation for police officer to proceed with less than constitutional prerequisites for search and seizure).
  • In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
    The Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government of “persons, houses, papers and effects.” “A search occurs whenever governmental agents intrude upon an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
  • State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
  • State v. Wasson 615 N.W.2d 316 Minn. 2000
  • State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    1868, 1884 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
  • State v. Martin 595 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    the supreme court recently reiterated that "the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct."
  • State v. Carver 577 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    (holding that a request by police that the defendant open his mouth was an illegal search and excluding the contents of the defendant’s mouth because the search caused the events which eventually led to obtaining the evidence).