DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Wiley, 366 N.W.2d 265.

260 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State of Minnesota v. Derrick Deshawn Shumpert Minn. Ct. App. 2014
  • State v. Yarbrough 828 N.W.2d 489 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
  • State v. Dickey 827 N.W.2d 792 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
    State v. Mollberg, 310 Minn. 376, 390 , State v. LaBarre, 292 Minn. 228, 232-33, 237 , 441 (1972); review denied (Minn. June 13, 2000).
  • State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
  • State v. Craig 807 N.W.2d 453 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
    Probable cause to search an automobile exists if “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quotation omitted).
  • State v. Jenkins 782 N.W.2d 211 Minn. 2010
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
  • State v. Fort 768 N.W.2d 335 Minn. 2009
    A search warrant is supported by probable cause if there is a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
  • State v. Holiday 749 N.W.2d 833 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
    (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Bourke 718 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 2006
    (“To ensure that the warrant requirement does not become so burdensome as to discourage the police from seeking review by * * * a neutral [magistrate], 'the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.’ ”) ().
  • State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
  • State v. Amundson 712 N.W.2d 560 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
    (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. King 690 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
  • State v. King 690 N.W.2d 397 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
    (stating appellate courts “must be careful not to review each component of the affidavit in isolation.
  • State v. Ross 676 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Ross 676 N.W.2d 301 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    Probable cause means that there is “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Brennan 674 N.W.2d 200 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
  • State v. Botelho 638 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
    § 626.08 (1998); (holding that “the pres *776 ence of probable cause should be determined under a ‘totality of the circumstances’ test” (quotation omitted)).
  • State v. Rochefort 631 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Rochefort 631 N.W.2d 802 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Anhalt 630 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (reviewing courts should defer to a magistrate’s determination of probable cause).
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
  • State v. Hochstein 623 N.W.2d 617 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
    (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 , 103 S.Ct.
  • 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. Secord 614 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Secord 614 N.W.2d 227 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    To determine whether the district court had a substantial basis for finding probable cause, we look to the “totality of the circumstances.”
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
  • State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
    (noting specific details of CRI’s record not necessary and statement that informant “has been used over several years successfully” may be sufficient to infer CRTs veracity) ().
  • State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115 Minn. 1999
    See State v. Lindquist, 295 Minn. 398, 400 , (determining that an informant who is not anonymous is more likely to be telling the truth because he or she presumably knows that the police could arrest him or her for making a false report); (determining that the informant's reliability is enhanced by a showing history of providing accurate information).
  • State v. Munson 594 N.W.2d 128 Minn. 1999
    (holding that, although more detail is preferable, a statement that an informant “has been used over several years successfully” was sufficient to permit an inference that the “informant had provided accurate information to the police in the past”); see also Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 3.3(
  • State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    1 As the district court noted, “the resolution of doubtful or marginal cases should be largely determined by the preference to be accorded warrants.” (internal quotes omitted).
  • State v. Bynum 579 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Bynum 579 N.W.2d 485 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
    2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983); -69 (Minn.1985) (using Gates test to determine existence of probable cause).
  • State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
  • State v. Souto 578 N.W.2d 744 Minn. 1998
    (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 , 103 S.Ct.
  • State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
  • State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996