Cited by

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

363 citing documents.

State v. Ortega 770 N.W.2d 145 Minn. 2009
We may independently review facts that are not in dispute and “determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Por Hue Vue 753 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Por Hue Vue 753 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
1 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. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
State v. Gauster 752 N.W.2d 496 Minn. 2008
We may independently review facts that are not in dispute, and “determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
In Re the Claim for Benefits by Sloan 729 N.W.2d 626 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
State v. Lemieux 726 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2007
1943, 1947 , 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006);-
State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Anderson 720 N.W.2d 854 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
(noting that Minnesota courts do “not look kindly upon warrantless entries of family residences”).
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
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
But “when reviewing a pre-trial order suppressing evidence where the *66 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.”
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
IV; Minn. Const. art I, § 10; (Minnesota courts do “not look kindly upon war-rantless entries of family residences.”).
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Heaney 689 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Johnson 689 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
507, 514 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)
State v. Coleman 686 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Coleman 686 N.W.2d 325 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bergh 679 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bergh 679 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Volkman 675 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Volkman 675 N.W.2d 337 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Bergerson 671 N.W.2d 197 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
Chafoulias v. Peterson 668 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 2003
State v. Licari 659 N.W.2d 243 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
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
Here, the facts are not in dispute and the district court’s decision is a question of law; accordingly, we “independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003