Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Cripps, 533 N.W.2d 388.

153 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Reason able suspicion must be “based on specific, articulable facts” that allow the officer to “be able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and objectiv e basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
6 An investigatory stop is justified if it “was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was based upon specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” (quotations omitted); (stating that reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific, articulable facts” that permit the officer to articulate his “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activi ty”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
d 836, 842-43 (Minn. 2011) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968))
Laurie Ann McIntyre, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
A reasonable articulable suspicion requires an officer to have “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Cripps , (stating that “a person has been seized if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed th at he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter”).
Paul Robert Mix, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
5 he was not free to leave.” E.D.J., d at 783; see State v. Cripps , d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995) (stating that a seizure occurs when the circumstances show that a reasonable person wo uld have believed that he was neither free to disre gard the police questions nor free to end the encounter); State v. Hanson , (“[T]he question to be asked by the reviewing cou
James Donald Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[A] person has been seized if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed th at he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron James Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Aaron James Helgeson Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(noting that an officer’s use of physical force or show of authority may constitute a seizure); (determining that officer seized driver by partially blocking vehicle, activating emergency lights, pounding on driver’s window, and opening driver’s
State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gary Wayne Wright Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In other words, “a person has been seized if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.”
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Walter Bakke Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific, articulable facts” that permit the officer to articulate his or her “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Terrance Paul DeRoche Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[An] officer must be able to articulate at [an] omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Brian Albert Lacey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Brian Albert Lacey Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse 878 N.W.2d 499 Minn. 2016
that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.’ ” -43 (Minn. 2011) ().
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Andrew John Wondrasek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Andrew Faust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jesse Andrew Faust Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Shuly Marambo Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Before conducting a Terry pat-search, an officer must have reasonable suspicion “based on specific, articulable facts” and a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Sherman Peak Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Rita Dolores Illi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 873 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Rita Dolores Illi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 873 N.W.2d 149 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erik Edward Malmquist Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Erik Edward Malmquist Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A seizure occurs if, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.”
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
A reasonable articulable suspicion exists if the police officer can present “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tabashish Anamiki Ogitchida Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Craig Ryan Schwoboda Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Craig Ryan Schwoboda Minn. Ct. App. 2015
An officer may temporarily stop a person and conduct an investigation “if the officer reasonably suspects [a] person of criminal activity [when] the officer’s suspicion [is] based on specific, articulable facts.” (citations omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Mikal Leritz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Before conducting a Terry search, an officer must have reasonable suspicion “based on specific, articulable facts” and a “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Gary Mason Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“The reasonable person standard is an objective standard .
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Chris William Savage Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Instead, a seizure occurs if, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” (stating that “[i]n determining whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable 5 person under the same circumstances to believe t
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A reasonable articulable suspicion exists if the police officer can present “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”
State of Minnesota v. George Kimuhu Gatungu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. George Kimuhu Gatungu Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1883 (1968)
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014