Cited by

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

363 citing documents.

State v. Houston 654 N.W.2d 727 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Goebel 654 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Goebel 654 N.W.2d 700 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
‘When reviewing pretrial orders on motions to suppress evidence, we may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the district court erred in suppressing — or not suppressing — the evidence.” ().
State v. Frank 650 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Frank 650 N.W.2d 213 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
State v. Larsen 650 N.W.2d 144 Minn. 2002
State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Caldwell 639 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Torgrimson 637 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Torgrimson 637 N.W.2d 345 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Olson 634 N.W.2d 224 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Lopez 631 N.W.2d 810 Minn. Ct. App. 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
(citation and quotation omitted).
State v. Richardson 622 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2001
State v. Richardson 622 N.W.2d 823 Minn. 2001
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Garza v. State 619 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Garza v. State 619 N.W.2d 573 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Pederson-Maxwell 619 N.W.2d 777 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
IV; Minn. Const. art. I; -22 (Minn.1992) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 , 88 S.Ct.
State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Cook 610 N.W.2d 664 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 605 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 605 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Normally, [an appellate] court will only reverse a pre-trial decision of the trial court suppressing evidence if the State demonstrates “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” ().
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Wasson 602 N.W.2d 247 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
review denied (Minn. July 16, 1998).
State v. Robb 605 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2000
State v. Robb 605 N.W.2d 96 Minn. 2000
State v. Uber 604 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Uber 604 N.W.2d 799 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of M. D. B. 601 N.W.2d 214 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
ANALYSIS When this court reviews a pretrial order suppressing evidence and the district court’s decision is a question of law, “the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a mat *216 ter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.” (citations omitted).
In Re the Welfare of C.P.W. 601 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of C.P.W. 601 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
27, 1996); (considering appropriate standard of review for state’s appeal from pretrial order suppressing evidence where facts were not in dispute and trial court’s decision was question of law and holding standard of review was de novo).
State v. Peralta 598 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Peralta 598 N.W.2d 698 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Champion 594 N.W.2d 526 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
State v. Taylor 594 N.W.2d 158 Minn. 1999
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Shellito 594 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Shellito 594 N.W.2d 182 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Robb 590 N.W.2d 813 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Taylor 590 N.W.2d 155 Minn. Ct. App. 1999