Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Johnson, 645 N.W.2d 505.

24 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Wendy Sue Whitcomb Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Wendy Sue Whitcomb Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[T]he test is not whether [the] appellant would have been allowed to leave, but whether a reasonable person would believe they were free to leave.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Long asserts that the deputy should have simply verified his identity rather than run a warrant check.
Nicholas Roger Marczak, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
d 505, 509 (Minn. App. 2002) (holding that when an officer walks away with a person’s identification card, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave a nd that person is effectively seized).
Distinguished State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
in support of its holding, that case does not support such a bright -line rule and is factually distinguishable from the instant case.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Appellant cites to State v. Johnson , to argue that this court has held that a traffic stop was impermiss ibly expanded to include a passenger when a police officer asked for the passenger’s driver’s license and subsequently looked into the identification.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dillen James Hinkemeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Dillen James Hinkemeyer Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But “[l]imited investigatory stops are allowed if police have reasonable articulable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
But “[l]imited investigatory stops are allowed if police have reasonable articulable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
However, limited investigatory stops 5 are permissible if a law-enforcement officer has “reasonable articulable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
However, limited investigatory stops are permissible if a law-enforcement officer has “reasonable articulable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation or of criminal activity.” 4
State of Minnesota v. Darreon Jonye Harding Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Darreon Jonye Harding Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Diede, d at 836, and Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 S. Ct. 338 (1979), arguing that mere proximity to a reported crime is not enough to support reasonable suspicion.
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Doren 654 N.W.2d 137 Minn. Ct. App. 2002

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by