Cited by

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

246 citing documents.

Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
James David Clark v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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. Ann Marie Hoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ann Marie Hoyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nicole Renaye Kroells Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The officer’s suspicion “must be something more than a mere hunch.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Andrew Syversrud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Andrew Syversrud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Andrew Joseph Sauter v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Andrew Joseph Sauter v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. George Edward Wilson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding “that an officer’s mistaken interpretation of a statute may not form the particularized and objective basis for 5 suspecting criminal activity necessary to justify a traffic stop”); (vacating conviction because the stop was premised on officer’s undisputedly mistaken belief that a traffic law was violated); Sarber v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 575, 580 (Minn. 1997).
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Aamir Karmoeddien Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”).
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corey James Wright v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Corey James Wright v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Justin Steven Luedke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Justin Steven Luedke v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Charles Edward Gorgol Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Multiple officers arrived at Gorgol’s home late at night, knocked repeatedly and loudly on his door, and twice ordered him to “open the door so we can talk to you.”1 (concluding consent was involuntary because the two troopers created “intimidating circumstances” that led the defendant to acquiesce to police authority); United States v. Flowers, 336 F.3d 1222, 1226 n.2 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding that “a reasonable person confronted by police officers outsid
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(“Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law .
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Tyler Thomas Devries Morse Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Troy Kenneth Scheffler Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“[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 v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Stephanie Evon Glover Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
3 “[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. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Berry Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Robert Stephen Mendez Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Brittney Dominique McKinney Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“In evaluating the reasonableness of a traffic stop, the subjective intent of the police officer is not a relevant consideration.” –75 (Minn. 2004); n.1 (Minn. 1997) (citing Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 116 S. Ct. 1769 (1996), and stating that “under a Whren analysis, any subjective desire by [the officer who made the traffic stop] to seek evidence of other illegal activity would not have invalidated the stop, had it been otherwise valid”).
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota law is clear 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 v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Minnesota law is clear that “[i]f an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.”