Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218.

363 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lawrence Markle Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jonathan Lawrence Markle Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michael Eugene Kraus v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Danika Paige Anastasi v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Danika Paige Anastasi v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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
(citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S. Ct. 2041 (1973)).
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 852 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 852 N.W.2d 906 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[W]hen reviewing a pre-trial order suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the [district] court’s decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
William Edwin Bredenbeck v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
William Edwin Bredenbeck v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erica Ann Rohde 852 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erica Ann Rohde 852 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2014
(“[T]he reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”).
Kevin Charles O'Brien v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gene Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Neil Douglas Rollins v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Kevin Charles O'Brien v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
2 Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if “we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred.” -47 (Minn. 2011).3 If there is reasonable evidence to support the district court’s findings, we will not disturb them.
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gene Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Christopher Roehl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Landon Ricky Olesiak v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brenda Lynne Schoenecker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Landon Ricky Olesiak v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Bradley Christopher Roehl Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Brenda Lynne Schoenecker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy Robert Christen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jeremy Robert Christen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Scott Marshall Karo v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
DECISION When reviewing a pre-trial order from a motion to suppress evidence, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
Scott Marshall Karo v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bernard 844 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Bernard 844 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Consent is one established exception, and search incident to arrest is another, Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 338 , 129 S.Ct.
State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Rohde 839 N.W.2d 758 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
ANALYSIS “[W]hen reviewing a pre-trial order suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the trial court’s decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Hawkinson 812 N.W.2d 201 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
“[W]hen reviewing a pretrial order suppressing evidence where the facts are not in dispute and the [district] court’s decision is a question of law, the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
Ellingson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 800 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
Ellingson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 800 N.W.2d 805 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Lussier 770 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lussier 770 N.W.2d 581 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)
State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009