DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. McCloskey, 453 N.W.2d 700.

100 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Zephaniah James Skarja Minn. Ct. App. 2014
    See id.; (“That there was this minimal corroboration is at least another relevant factor on which the magistrate was entitled to rely in making the totality-of-circumstances assessment of probable cause.”).
  • State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    appellate court inquiry is limited to whether, viewing the- affidavit as a whole, the issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Harris, d at 788 (quotations omitted).
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    “All of the facts relating to the informant should be considered in weighing reliability.” Souto, d at 750 ().
  • State v. Jackson 742 N.W.2d 163 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Papadakis 643 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 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
    See Rochefort, d at 804-05 ; (suggesting “that the resolution of marginal cases should be ‘largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants’ ” (quotation omitted)).
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    “[T]he resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded to warrants.’ ” (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 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
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    When police rely on information provided by an informant, “all of the stated facts relating to the informer should be considered' in making a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.”
  • State v. Demry 605 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Demry 605 N.W.2d 106 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    -03 (Minn.1990) (under the “totality of the circumstances” test for probable cause to search, even an anonymous informant may be reliable, where some details from the informant had been independently corroborated by the officer).
  • State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
    see also Maldonado, d at 351-52 (holding that a search of a motor vehicle was supported by probable cause based primarily on corroborated information provided by an informant).
  • State v. Walker 584 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Walker 584 N.W.2d 763 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    Under this test, “the reviewing court is not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation but is to view them together.” /703 (Minn.1990).
  • State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
  • State v. Zanter 535 N.W.2d 624 Minn. 1995
    at 2332 , -03 (Minn.1990).
  • State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Zanter 518 N.W.2d 52 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    701 n. 1 (Minn. 1990) (expressly declining to address adoption of reasonable reliance doctrine of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
  • State v. Balduc 514 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
    See, , 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990); Herbst, d at 404 .
  • State v. Otis 487 N.W.2d 928 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Otis 487 N.W.2d 928 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
    (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Fay 488 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Fay 488 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
  • State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
  • State v. Lindsey 473 N.W.2d 857 Minn. 1991
    3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) , 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990).
  • State v. Alt 469 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Alt 469 N.W.2d 732 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Albrecht 465 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Albrecht 465 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
  • State v. Lindsey 460 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Lindsey 460 N.W.2d 632 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    reversed , 701 n. 1 (Minn.1990) (declining to address Leon good faith exception, although suggested in court of appeals dissent).
  • State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
  • State v. Lozar 458 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
    Confidential Informant In reviewing a magistrate’s determination of probable cause, a reviewing court must give deference to the magistrate’s decision and uphold the determination if there is a “substantial basis” for the determination in light of the “totality of the circumstances.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 , 103 S.Ct.