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. Riley, 568 N.W.2d 518.

101 citing documents.

  • State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Koppi 798 N.W.2d 358 Minn. 2011
    Answering that question is “an objective, not subjective, inquiry.”
  • State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
  • State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
  • Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
  • Riley v. State 792 N.W.2d 831 Minn. 2011
    A detailed statement of the crimes and events that formed the basis of Riley’s appeal can be found in this court’s -23 (Minn.1997).
  • State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
    However, we will make an independent determination of whether a suspect was in custody, whether the State has shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence that a defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights, and whether a statement was given voluntarily
  • State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Zabawa 787 N.W.2d 177 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Robideau 783 N.W.2d 390 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
  • State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
  • State v. HEIGES 779 N.W.2d 904 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
    (applying collective-knowledge doctrine); see also Morelli v. Webster, 552 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.2009) (“[T]he collective knowledge doctrinen is a mechanism that in some circumstances allows a court to ‘impute’ facts known by one police officer to another police officer engaged in a joint mission.”).
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Jones 753 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2008
  • State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Ganpat 732 N.W.2d 232 Minn. 2007
    -26 (Minn.1997) (held that defendant’s will was not overborne where the interrogation took place in the middle of the night and lasted two hours, and where defendant was not deprived of his physical needs and continually denied committing the crime).
  • State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
  • State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
    See United States v. Twiss, 127 F.3d 771, 774 (8th Cir.1997); (using collective-knowledge approach to analyze a war-rantless arrest).
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Moon 717 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    Because exclusion of an involuntary statement is intended to deter improper police interrogation, a finding of coercive police activity is a prerequisite to concluding that a statement was involuntary
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
    -39 (Minn. 1998) (weapon connected with murder found at perpetrator’s acquaintance’s house where perpetrator was arrested); -22 (Minn.1997) (same).
  • Magnuson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 703 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • Magnuson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 703 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Winter 668 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Winter 668 N.W.2d 222 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.K. 667 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • In Re the Welfare of M.A.K. 667 N.W.2d 467 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
  • State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    When determining whether probable cause exists to make a war-rantless arrest, an appellate court “independently reviews the facts to determine the reasonableness of the conduct of police.” (citation omitted).
  • State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    Carlson, d at 173-74 ; (police must show that they could have reasonably believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested).
  • State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    To establish probable cause, the police must show that they “reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.” (quoting State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , ); (“test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain
  • State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 617 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of D.S.N. 611 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • In Re the Welfare of D.S.N. 611 N.W.2d 811 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
    •• -74 (Minn.1978); (“[T]he police must show that they ‘reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.’ ”).
  • State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Miller 600 N.W.2d 457 Minn. 1999
    Without reference to MRPC 4.2 the trial court determined that the knowledge of the County Attorney’s office and the IRS agents that appellant was represented by counsel was imputed to the remaining investigators executing the search warrant under the “collective knowledge theory”
  • State v. Miles 585 N.W.2d 368 Minn. 1998