Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wick, 331 N.W.2d 769.

35 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson, Appellant. Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Louis Park v. Berg , (“This court has rejected the contention that evidence of a defendant’s resistance to an illegal arrest must be suppressed as forbidden fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation by the police.”); (“Minnesota law does not recognize [a] defendant’s asserted right t o resist an unlawful 10 arrest or search .”); d 540, 550 (Minn. App. 2025) (describing caselaw on intervening circumstances), rev. granted (Minn. June 17, 2025).
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas Norton Engel Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(rejecting “the contention that evidence of a defendant’s resistance to an illegal arrest must be 10 suppressed as forbidden fruit of a Fourth Amendment violation by the police”); (“Minnesota law does not recognize [a] defendant’s asserted right to resist an unlawful arrest or search.”); -79 (Minn. App. 1997) (noting that “evidence of a crime committed in response to an illegal police arrest or search is not suppressed as the fruit of the
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
solely on the ground that the officers are violating the defendant’s fourth amendment rights or on the ground that the defendant believes that the officers are violating his rights.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
In the Matter of the Welfare of: A. A. S., Child Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(“Minnesota law does not recognize defendant’s asserted right to resist an unlawful arrest or search.”); -73 (Minn. App. 2016) (“It is well settled that a defendant cannot prevail on an evidence-insufficiency argument by challenging her conviction base
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Minnesota law does not recognize [an] asserted right to resist an unlawful arrest or search .”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“[W]hile a defendant would have a right to resist an officer in order to defend himself .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Alfonso Carillo Buenaventura, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(affirming conviction for obstruction where appellant claimed that arrest was unlawful).
Troy Kenneth Scheffler, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Moreover, even if Scheffler’s arrest was unlawful he had no right to resist because “Minnesota law does not recognize [a] defendant’s asserted right to resist an unlawful arrest or search.” (stating that “[a] defendant may not resort to self-help to resolve disputes concerning unreasonable .
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Litzau 893 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota 875 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michelle MacDonald Shimota 875 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Morin 736 N.W.2d 691 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
“Obstructs” and “resists” are terms that, at least in the context of the duties police officers perform, connote physical activity directed at the officer even more strongly than does the term “interferes.” (equating the verb “resist” with “assaultive conduct”); cf. Bergeson v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Minnesota law, however, “does not recognize defendant’s asserted right to resist an unlawful arrest or search.” (stating same).
City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
City of St. Louis Park v. Berg 433 N.W.2d 87 Minn. 1988
we said: Minnesota law does not recognize defendant’s asserted right to resist an unlawful arrest or search.
State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988
State v. Shamp 427 N.W.2d 228 Minn. 1988
State v. Diedrich 410 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Diedrich 410 N.W.2d 20 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the defendant fought with the officer who was trying to arrest him and was convicted of using force or the threat of force in interfering with a police officer in the performance of his official duties.
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Nunn 399 N.W.2d 193 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Combs 398 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1987
State v. Combs 398 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 1987
State v. Jensen 373 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Jensen 373 N.W.2d 364 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Moreover, there is no right to resist an unlawful arrest
State v. Fernow 354 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1984
State v. Fernow 354 N.W.2d 438 Minn. 1984
“The general rule is that the defendant is entitled to have all the elements of the offense submitted to the jury even if the evidence relating to those elements is uncontradicted.”
State v. Kutchara 350 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1984
State v. Kutchara 350 N.W.2d 924 Minn. 1984
and cases cited therein.