Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. George, 557 N.W.2d 575.

246 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See State v. George , (providing that an officer has an objective basis for stopping a vehicle if the officer “observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“[I]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” State v. George
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“If an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” .
Kevin Nelson Birkland, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Anderson , -79 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Minn. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See State v. George , (stating that an observed traffic violation justifies a stop).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
[his] vehicle was justified at its inception because Officer Spencer observed [him] speeding” and that “Spencer expanded the scope and duration of the stop beyond its original purpose when he seized Smith not for the purpose of investigating the speeding but for the purpose of investigating his ‘very suspicious’ behavior after he pulled into and parked in the driveway.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (“[I]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an obje
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-1103 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
A18-0659 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(stating that “if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(citing State v. Pleas , , 333 -34 (Minn. 1983) (upholding stop based on officer’s observation of broken windshield, no front license plate, and rear plate upside down); State 5 v. Barber, (upholding stop based on officer’s observation that license pla
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Ordinarily, if police observe a traffic violation, “however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The state argues that the initia l stop was supported by reason able, articulable suspicion because the police offi cer testified that Fineday had a broken taillight and malfunctioning license plate equipment.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A traffic stop “must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A traffic stop “must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity .” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (quotation omitted).
Cole Gilbert McGuire, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A17-0564 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
A traffic stop “‘must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.’” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S. Ct. 690, 695 (1981)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
And though an officer has every right to ask for permission to search
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. George , see also Berge v. Commissioner of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Joshua Alvin Peterson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
William Robert Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
see also B erge v. Commissioner of Pub .
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Robert Capers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Johnnie Robert Capers Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minn. Stat. § 169.19, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harvey McGee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paul Harvey McGee Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“[I]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Steven Duane Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
4(a)(3) (2014) (prohibiting operation of a vehicle with tinted windows); (noting that a traffic violation, however slight, provides an objective basis for conducting a traffic stop).