Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite In Re Welfare of G. (NMN) M., 560 N.W.2d 687.

215 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gene Hoberg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Joseph Gene Hoberg Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The “test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.”
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Jayne Holmes-Buscher Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Cynthia Jayne Holmes-Buscher Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Damian Mata Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Damian Mata Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“The information necessary to support an investigative stop need not be based on the officer’s personal observations, rather, the 4 police can base an investigative stop on an informant’s tip if it has sufficient indicia of reliability.”
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Reasonable, ar-ticulable suspicion exists “when an officer observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” see also *611 (stating that the reasonable-suspicion standard is not high, but that the suspicion must be based on more than a mere hunch of criminal activity).
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“We review de novo a district court’s ruling on constitutional questions involving searches and seizures.” (noting that standard for reviewing district court’s reasonable-suspicion determination for Terry stops and probable-cause determination for warrantless searches is de novo).
State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
I. Probable cause to arrest a suspect exists when “the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed.”
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
State v. Milton 821 N.W.2d 789 Minn. 2012
As previously stated, “a police officer can seize an object in plain view without a warrant only if the object’s incriminating [nature] is immediately apparent.”
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
State v. Williams 794 N.W.2d 867 Minn. 2011
1623 , 10 L.Ed.2d 726 (1963) (plurality opinion)
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
“The police may briefly *245 stop a person and make reasonable inquiries when an officer observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.” In re Welfare of G. (NMN) M.
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
State v. Timberlake 744 N.W.2d 390 Minn. 2008
That standard is met when an officer “observes unusual conduct that leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his or her experience that criminal activity may be afoot.”
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of J.W.L. 732 N.W.2d 332 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
see also Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 326 , 107 S.Ct.
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
State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Timberlake 726 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Welfare of T.L.S. 713 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of T.L.S. 713 N.W.2d 877 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
In Re the Welfare of M.D.R. 693 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
See In re Welfare of G. (NMN) M., (noting *449 that “the grounds for making the stop can be based on the collective knowledge of all investigating officers”), aff'd, see also United States v. Chhunn, 11 F.3d 107, 110 (8th Cir.1993) (looking to the collective knowledge of the officers to determine the reasonableness of a Terry stop); 3 United States v. Home, 4 F.3d 579, 585 (8th Cir.1993) (noting requirement that there be “some degree of communication” of knowledge).
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Vereb 643 N.W.2d 342 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(citing Davis, d at 181 ).
State v. Zimmer 642 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Zimmer 642 N.W.2d 753 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
(citing Minn. v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Rochefort 631 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2001
State v. Rochefort 631 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2001
(“This court will review de novo a trial court’s determination of reasonable suspicion as it relates to Terry * * * stops and probable cause as it relates to warrantless searches.” (footnote omitted)).
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
“When reviewing the legality of a seizure or search, an appellate court will not reverse the [district] court’s findings unless clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” (citation omitted).
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Hawkins 622 N.W.2d 576 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
To establish probable cause, the police must show that they “reasonably could have believed that a crime has been committed by the person to be arrested.” (quoting State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , ); (“test of probable cause to arrest is whether the objective facts are such that under the circumstances, a person of ordinary care and prudence would entertain an honest and strong suspicion that a crime has been committed”).
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
(citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 698-99 , 116 S.Ct.
In Re the Welfare of D.S.N. 611 N.W.2d 811 Minn. Ct. App. 2000