Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Sorenson, 441 N.W.2d 455.

166 citing documents.

Jones v. State 671 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2003
Jones v. State 671 N.W.2d 743 Minn. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
We have stated the “existence of probable cause is relevant only when a person has demonstrated a legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy.” 460 (Minn.1989) (concluding “the open-fields doctrine permits a conservation officer to enter almost any area in order to enforce the state’s game and fish laws”).
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 Minn. 2003
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. KNAEBLE 652 N.W.2d 551 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
Respondent goes on to argue that the statute on which the state relies to justify Officer Fritz’s unauthorized entry is unconstitutional because it allows law enforcement to enter a private ice fishing house without restriction, according less constitutional protection to Minnesota citizens than they would enjoy under federal law, (“A statute cannot confer rights on law enforcement officers that the U.S. Constitution denies.”).
State v. Colosimo 648 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Colosimo 648 N.W.2d 271 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(holding that conservation officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he entered defendant’s fish house without consent, a warrant, probable cause or any articulable basis for suspicion).
Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
Ferguson v. State 645 N.W.2d 437 Minn. 2002
State v. Busse 644 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2002
State v. Busse 644 N.W.2d 79 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 637 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Larsen 637 N.W.2d 315 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
The district court in Krenz , when suppressing evidence found inside the fish house, : *322 The court then addressed the stop of defendant’s vehicle.
In Re the Welfare of the Children of Coats 633 N.W.2d 505 Minn. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
Garza v. State 632 N.W.2d 633 Minn. 2001
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Barnes 618 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Villalobos 613 N.W.2d 766 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(declining to rule on issue because issue was not raised in district court and there was insufficient information on record to allow review); (holding issues not raised at trial are deemed forfeited).
State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Clow 600 N.W.2d 724 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Rader 597 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Rader 597 N.W.2d 321 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State Ex Rel. Morrow v. LaFleur 590 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1999
State Ex Rel. Morrow v. LaFleur 590 N.W.2d 787 Minn. 1999
see also Thayer v. American Financial Advisers, Inc., (reviewing court will consider "only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it”).
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Basting 572 N.W.2d 281 Minn. 1997
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
State v. Mills 562 N.W.2d 276 Minn. 1997
(“Usually, we will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve constitutional questions regarding criminal procedure.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Schmitz 559 N.W.2d 701 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Wagner 555 N.W.2d 752 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
Roby v. State 547 N.W.2d 354 Minn. 1996
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
In Re the Welfare of L.J.S. 539 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
State v. Grube 531 N.W.2d 484 Minn. 1995
In response, the state, urges us to ignore this issue because Grube waived the issue at trial.
State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
State v. Larson 520 N.W.2d 456 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
(“We will not decide issues which are not first addressed by the trial court and are raised for the first time on appeal even if the issues involve questions regarding criminal procedure”).
Gray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Gray v. Commissioner of Public Safety 505 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Sound reasons for interpreting a Minnesota state constitution provision different from its federal counterpart include Minnesota history or tradition warranting a different approach, (Kelley, J., concurring specially), or compelling arguments in favor of departing from the federal approach, see E.D.J., d at 781 .
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593 Minn. 1993