Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wagner, 637 N.W.2d 330.
- Lisa Marie Hellerud-Schuth, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“Crossing the center line is a violation of the traffic laws and will usually provide the officer with an objective, reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.”
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
-
State of Minnesota, Respondent,
Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When there is credible testimony that the driver actually crossed the centerline, this court and the supreme court have uniformly found investigatory stops valid.” (citing Richardson, d at 825 (finding reasonable suspicion when vehicle crossed fog line)).
-
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Contrary to respondent’s assertion, this court has previously stated that “[c]rossing the centerline is a violation of the traffic laws and will usually provide the officer with an objective, reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.” State v. Wagner , see Doebel, d at 709 (“An officer’s observation of a traffic violation, however insignificant, provides the officer with an objective basis for conducting a stop.” (quotation omitted)).
- Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
- State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, (finding an objective, reasonable basis to conduct a traffic stop when the driver crossed the center line and drove on the shoulder); (holding that “continuous weaving within one’s own lane is sufficient by itself to create a reasonable art
- State of Minnesota v. Sharleen Leslie Paulson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
-
State of Minnesota v. Sharleen Leslie Paulson
Minn. Ct. App. 2015
We have held that “[c]rossing the center line is a violation of the traffic laws and will usually provide the officer with an objective, reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop.” d 330, 336 (Minn. App. 2001) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 169.18, subd.
- State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne
Minn. Ct. App. 2014
See, (finding police stop of vehicle lawful where driver changed lanes without signaling); (finding reasonable basis for stop where driver 5 crossed center line and drove onto shoulder).
- Stephanie Ann Keim v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Stephanie Ann Keim v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. BRIARD 784 N.W.2d 421 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
State v. BRIARD
784 N.W.2d 421
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(stating court “construes criminal statutes strictly”), review denied (Minn. May 27, 2009); -39 (Minn.App.2001) (noting the “different interests at stake” between civil implied-consent proceedings and criminal DWI charges and holding collateral estoppel does not apply against a DWI defendant in a criminal case when the defendant unsuccessfully litigated the same issues in an earlier implied-consent proce
- Wilkes v. Commissioner of Public Safety 777 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
-
Wilkes v. Commissioner of Public Safety
777 N.W.2d 239
Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Relying on State v. Wagner, the district court reasoned that, because an officer has an objective basis for stopping a vehicle when a traffic violation has occurred, -36 (Minn.App.2001), Officer Schletty had a sufficient legal basis to stop appellant both for impeding traffic under Minn.Stat.
- State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-
State v. Netland
742 N.W.2d 207
Minn. Ct. App. 2007
See Polsfuss, d at 4 (recognizing different due-process guarantees in each context); (noting that proceedings are “related only to the extent that they both generally grow out of the same set of facts” (quotation omitted)).
- Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed 647 N.W.2d 553 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
-
Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Reed
647 N.W.2d 553
Minn. Ct. App. 2002
See, (stating that the result in a civil proceeding cannot be used to bind a criminal defendant on any element of a crime).
- State v. Larivee 644 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
- State v. Larivee 644 N.W.2d 100 Minn. Ct. App. 2002