Cited by
Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Othoudt, 482 N.W.2d 218.
-
State v. Taylor
590 N.W.2d 155
Minn. Ct. App. 1999
“Courts are particularly reluctant to find exceptions to this rule in the context of a warrantless search or seizure in a home.” (citingPayton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586 , 100 S.Ct.
- State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
- State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
- State v. Wicklund 589 N.W.2d 793 Minn. 1999
- State v. Harris 590 N.W.2d 90 Minn. 1999
- State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Bauman 586 N.W.2d 416 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Hendrickson 584 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Hendrickson 584 N.W.2d 774 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Campbell 581 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Campbell 581 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Perkins 582 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1998
- State v. Perkins 582 N.W.2d 876 Minn. 1998
- State v. Martinez 579 N.W.2d 144 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
-
State v. Martinez
579 N.W.2d 144
Minn. Ct. App. 1998
ANALYSIS On appeal from a pre-trial order suppressing evidence when the district court’s decision is a question of law and there is no factual dispute, “the reviewing court may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
- State v. Carver 577 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Carver 577 N.W.2d 245 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
- State v. Hardy 577 N.W.2d 212 Minn. 1998
- State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Harris 572 N.W.2d 333 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Nordin 571 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Nordin 571 N.W.2d 242 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Carter 569 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1997
- State v. Carter 569 N.W.2d 169 Minn. 1997
- STATE, CITY OF BELLE PLAINE v. Stradcutter 568 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- STATE, CITY OF BELLE PLAINE v. Stradcutter 568 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Battleson 567 N.W.2d 69 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
- State v. Burton 556 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Burton 556 N.W.2d 600 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Fiebke 554 N.W.2d 755 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- State v. Pike 551 N.W.2d 919 Minn. 1996
-
State v. Pike
551 N.W.2d 919
Minn. 1996
In an appeal of a pretrial ruling suppressing evidence, this court will only reverse the district court 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. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
- State v. Paul 548 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 1996
- State v. Lopez 538 N.W.2d 705 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Lopez
538 N.W.2d 705
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
ANALYSIS On appeal of the denial of a suppression motion, this court “may independently review the facts and determine, as a matter of law, whether the evidence need be suppressed.”
- State v. Paul 536 N.W.2d 649 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
-
State v. Paul
536 N.W.2d 649
Minn. Ct. App. 1995
“Courts are particularly reluctant to find exceptions to this rule in the context of a warrantless search or seizure in a home.”
- State v. Gilmartin 535 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Gilmartin 535 N.W.2d 650 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- County of Hennepin v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 19 527 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1995
-
County of Hennepin v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 19
527 N.W.2d 821
Minn. 1995
See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392 , 98 S.Ct.
- State v. Wills 524 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Wills 524 N.W.2d 507 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
- State v. Plummer 511 N.W.2d 36 Minn. Ct. App. 1994