Cited by

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

153 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne 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. Corey Joel Eichers 853 N.W.2d 114 Minn. 2014
In the same way that not all contact between citizens and police constitutes a seizure, “[n]ot all police dealings with containers and other items are sufficiently intrusive to require that they be 1 Both provisions provide that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violat
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[A] person has been seized if in view of all of the 13 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 the question to be asked is whether, “looking at all of the facts, the conduct of the police would communicate to a reasonable person in the defendant’s physical circumstances an attempt by the police to capture or seize or
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael Staples Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To determine if there has been a seizure, we examine whether, “in view of all 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. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronaldo Earl Rounds Minn. Ct. App. 2014
d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
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.” see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980); (stating that “[i]n determining whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under t
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Smith 814 N.W.2d 346 Minn. 2012
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
to support his argument that the investigatory stop in the present case was unlawful because officers had no reason to suspect that unlawful activity was afoot.
Overvig v. Commissioner of Public Safety 730 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Overvig v. Commissioner of Public Safety 730 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
We must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the incident to determine if “a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.”
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
squad car); (extending detention during a routine traffic stop constitutes a seizure); (short-term social guest in a host’s home had reasonable expectation of privacy); Wiegand, d at 132 (dog sniff of motor vehicle); Harris, (bus passenger not seized under state constitution); (seizure of an underage patron in a bar); Ascher v. Comm’r of Public Safety, (sobriety checkpoint roadblock to stop motor vehicles); (seizure of person standing on street corner); Fuller, (double jeopardy clause of state c
State v. Syhavong 661 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Syhavong 661 N.W.2d 278 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Fort 660 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2003
State v. Fort 660 N.W.2d 415 Minn. 2003
State v. Bergerson 659 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bergerson 659 N.W.2d 791 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
at 1880 ; (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
() (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 , 103 S.Ct.
State v. Johnson 645 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Johnson 645 N.W.2d 505 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
A seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Tomaino 627 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Tomaino 627 N.W.2d 338 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schuster v. Commissioner of Public Safety 622 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Schuster v. Commissioner of Public Safety 622 N.W.2d 844 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Haataja 611 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Haataja 611 N.W.2d 353 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
(citing both in holding that defendant was seized "within the meaning of Article 1, Section 10” of the Minnesota Constitution while not mentioning the Fourth Amend
State v. Shellito 594 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Shellito 594 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
In evaluating whether a seizure occurred, Minnesota courts determine whether a reasonable person in defendant’s position, based on the totality of the circumstances, would have believed that “he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436 , 111 S.Ct.
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Ingram 570 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
State v. Bell 557 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Bell 557 N.W.2d 603 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996