Cited by

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

246 citing documents.

Lucas Gordon Bunde v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Lucas Gordon Bunde v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“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 v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Becky Ann Rice Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(concluding consent was involuntary where repeated questioning by two troopers created “intimidating circumstances” that led the defendant to acquiesce to police authority); Diede, d at 847-48 (concluding that defendant did not voluntarily consent to search when she initially refused to
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Roy Gibbs v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
5 provide a buffer lane between his vehicle and a police car did not justify the traffic stop); -79 (Minn. 1997) (holding that a police officer’s mistaken belief that headlight configuration on defendant’s motorcycle was illegal did not justify the traffic stop).
State of Minnesota v. Kristopher Lee Roybal Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Chad Michael Smith Minn. Ct. App. 2014
We subject claims of voluntary consent to “careful appellant review.”
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that a valid basis for stopping a vehicle generally exists if law enforcement observes any traffic-law violation).
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Hoekstra v. Commissioner of Public Safety 839 N.W.2d 536 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“Generally, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, no matter how insignificant the traffic law, that observation forms the requisite particularized and objective basis for conducting a traffic stop.” ().
Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety 819 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Sarber v. Commissioner of Public Safety 819 N.W.2d 465 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Barajas 817 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wiseman 816 N.W.2d 689 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-81 (Minn.1994), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the defendants’ coerced or extracted consent to a warrant-less police search was invalid.
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Theng Yang 814 N.W.2d 716 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
-24 (Minn.2004); -79 (Minn.1997).
State v. Wendorf 814 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Wendorf 814 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that a traffic stop “must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity” (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct.
State v. Cox 807 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Cox 807 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
See Britton, d at 89 ; -79 (Minn.1997).
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
State v. Diede 795 N.W.2d 836 Minn. 2011
we held that questioning by two officers contributed to “intimidating circumstances.” Here, Die-de was questioned by two officers while two additional law enforcement officers and a police dog were on the scene.
State v. Doebel 790 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Doebel 790 N.W.2d 707 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Wiggins 788 N.W.2d 509 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Beall 771 N.W.2d 41 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
15, 2001); (stating that an officer has an objective basis for stopping a vehicle if the officer observes even a minor traffic-law violation).
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Dressel 765 N.W.2d 419 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
of persons who may have played a role” in a crime); (noting that “police must be able to seek the cooperation and ask questions of individuals if the safety and security of the community is to be preserved” (quotation omitted)).
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
State v. Netland 762 N.W.2d 202 Minn. 2009
for the proposition that consent must be freely and voluntarily given in order to abrogate the warrant requirement.
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Netland 742 N.W.2d 207 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kilmer 741 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Kilmer 741 N.W.2d 607 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Hussong 739 N.W.2d 922 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
1(C) (2005) (requiring yield to watercraft farthest to right when two watercraft risk collision); (stating that violation of traffic regulation, however insignificant, provides basis for stopping vehicle).
Lewis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 737 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
Lewis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 737 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Johnson 713 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Generally, “if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” see also, (upholding a stop based on an officer’s observation of a broken windshield, no front license plate, and upside down rear license plate); State v. Barber, 308 Minn. 204 , (upholding a stop based on an officer’s
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Strandness 684 N.W.2d 516 Minn. Ct. App. 2004