Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Henning, 666 N.W.2d 379.

31 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
We also noted that “unlike a physical stop to check the vehicle’s license plate, a computerized license -plate check is not a seizure that implicates the Fourth Amendment.” Setinich, d at 12 ().
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
The test for appropriateness, in turn, is based on a “balancing of the government’s need to search or seize and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.” (quotation omitted); d 379, 384 (Minn. 2003).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Id.; -86 (Minn. 2003) (holding that mere presence of special license plates issued under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.60 (2002) does not support reasonable, articulable suspicion); (stating that a criminal record cannot form the sole basis for probable cause).
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
Further, Taylor’s reliance on, and the dissent’s analogy to, State v. Henning , is not persuasive.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Henning , (stating that because the court reached a conclusion on one Fourth Amendment issue, it did not need to reach the other raised arguments).
Roger William Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roger William Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court ruled in State v. Henning that a police officer does not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity that provides a basis for an investigative stop based solely on the fact that a car has specialized-series license plates.2 -85 2 These license plates are issued under certain conditions when a driver, owner of a motor vehicle, or a household member has restricted or revoked driving privileges because of 6 (Minn. 2003).
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-86 (Minn. 2 Sergeant Anderson testified that he made the statement about giving Mack a preliminary breath test to a ride-along student in his patrol car to inform the student what he was thinking.
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public Safety 850 N.W.2d 717 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
408, 412 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 (1957) (noting “increasing slaughter on our highways”); -91 (Minn.2003) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (reasoning that suspicionless stop of driver with special license plates, conducted pursuant to statute, was reasonable).
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
For that reason, on which Brooks relies, is inapposite.
McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing 831 N.W.2d 518 Minn. 2013
State v. Setinich 822 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Setinich 822 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(“Generally, an officer stopping a vehicle on the open road in order to check the driver’s license is a ‘seizure’ under the Fourth Amendment.”).
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
The test for appropriateness, in turn, is based on a “ ‘balancing of the government’s need to search or seize and the individual’s right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers.’” Burbach, d at 488 (quoting Askerooth, d at 364-65 )
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
In Re the Welfare of N.J.S. 753 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2008
See, (using the expression “prior record” to refer to appellant’s criminal history); (referring to the “prior record of convictions” referenced in Minn. R.Crim.
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Smoot 737 N.W.2d 849 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
(discussing special risks posed by repeat DWI offenders).
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
State v. Flowers 734 N.W.2d 239 Minn. 2007
("We have never before simply allowed the ends to justify the means when the means void our citizens’ constitutional protections.”).
State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
State v. Burbach 706 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 2005
Both probable cause and reasonableness are evaluated by looking at the “totality of the circumstances.” -85 (Minn.2003).
State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Brown 689 N.W.2d 796 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by