Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Pleas, 329 N.W.2d 329.

48 citing documents.

Melissa Ann Lorsung, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Hurie Tyrone Boclair Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Deshaun Arnez-Lamar Baker Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(upholding stop based on observation of a broken windshield, no front license plate, and an upside-down rear plate); (upholding stop based on observation that license plates were attached with wires rather than bolts).
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Randall Thomas Graham Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
“When an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” (quotation omitted); see also State v. Pleas , - 33 (Minn. 1983) (upholding denial of suppression motion because the investigating officer observed minor traffic violations, including a broken windshield, a missing front license plate, and a rear plate that was attached upside down); -77 (Minn. 1976) (upholding denial of suppr
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing State v. Pleas , , 333 -34 (Minn. 1983) (upholding stop based on officer’s observation of broken windshield, no front license plate, and rear plate upside down); State 5 v. Barber, (upholding stop based on officer’s observation that license plate was wired on rather than bolted on)).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Shayia Lee, (A14-1503), State of Minnesota v. Tasheanna Yvonne Moore, (A14-1504). Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 329, 333 (Minn. 1983) (quoting Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 701 n.12, 101 S. Ct. 2587, 2593 (1981)).
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Generally, “if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” see also, (upholding a stop based on an officer’s observation of a broken windshield, no front license plate, and upside down rear license plate); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (upholding a stop based on an officer’s observation that a vehicle’s license plates were wired on rather
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Sherbrooke 633 N.W.2d 856 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
State v. George 557 N.W.2d 575 Minn. 1997
See, (upholding stop based on officer’s observation of broken windshield, no front license plate, and rear plate upside down), and State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (upholding stop based on officer’s observation that license plate was wired on rather than bolted on).
State v. Cornell 491 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Cornell 491 N.W.2d 668 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Because the test for probable cause is an objective one, a search must be upheld “if there was a valid ground for the search, even if the officers conducting the search based the search on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.”
State v. White 489 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1992
State v. White 489 N.W.2d 792 Minn. 1992
2587, 2593, n. 12 , 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981); 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 9.2(f) at 375 (2d ed. 1987).
State v. Dickerson 481 N.W.2d 840 Minn. 1992
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Everett 472 N.W.2d 864 Minn. 1991
State v. Rean 416 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
State v. Rean 416 N.W.2d 790 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
(objective approach prevents fruitless exploration of minds of law enforcers).
State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Payne 403 N.W.2d 273 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Paulson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Paulson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 244 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Rodewald 376 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1985
State v. Rodewald 376 N.W.2d 416 Minn. 1985
Scott , which we have relied on in numerous eases, stands for the proposition that “a search must be upheld, at least as a matter of federal constitutional law, if there was a valid ground for the search, even if the officers conducting the search based the search on the wrong ground or had an improper motive.”
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 374 N.W.2d 730 Minn. 1985
State v. Claussen 353 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Claussen 353 N.W.2d 688 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Faber 343 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1984
State v. Faber 343 N.W.2d 659 Minn. 1984
3127 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1150 (1978)
Wensman v. State 342 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1984
Wensman v. State 342 N.W.2d 150 Minn. 1984
State v. Menard 341 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Menard 341 N.W.2d 888 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Schinzing 342 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1983
State v. Schinzing 342 N.W.2d 105 Minn. 1983
and State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297
State v. Sanders 339 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1983
State v. Sanders 339 N.W.2d 557 Minn. 1983
1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. McKinley, 305 Minn. 297