Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Champion, 533 N.W.2d 40.

42 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“The test is not whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Custodial interrogation occurs when, “based on all the surrounding circumstances, ‘a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.’” (); see also J.D.B.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
But even though Kalis was not free to terminate the encounter, the test “is not whether a reasonabl e person would believe he or she was not free to leave.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
The test is not merely “whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.” State v. Champion
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
The test is not merely “whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.” State v. Champion
Followed Mohamad Safraz Haniff, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
(“We follow the custody test adopted in Berkemer.”).
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. 887 N.W.2d 476 Minn. 2016
He urges us to adopt the standard we articulated in State v. Champion, which requires “considerable, but not unlimited, deference to a trial court’s fact-specific resolution of [a legal] issue when the proper legal standard is applied.”
State of Minnesota v. Heather Leann Horst 880 N.W.2d 24 Minn. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Peter Louis John Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The test for whether a suspect is in custody is whether, under all the circumstances presented, a reasonable person “would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.” (Minn. 1995) (emphasis added).1 Interrogation is “any words or actions on the part of 1 Factors that suggest a suspect is in custody include: (1) the police interviewing the suspect at the police station; (2) the suspect being told he or she is a prime suspect in a
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Vilaysack Sirimanothay Minn. Ct. App. 2015
“The test is not whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.”
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Terry Gordon Wurtz Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The Staats factors also support the conclusion that “a reasonable person under the circumstances would [not] believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree 9 associated with formal arrest.” Thompson, d at 491 ().
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jimmy Lee Morris Minn. Ct. App. 2014
The test is not whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.” (citation omitted).
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
State v. Sterling 834 N.W.2d 162 Minn. 2013
We grant “ ‘considerable, but not unlimited, deference to a trial court’s fact-specific resolution of such an issue when the proper legal standard is applied.’ ” ().
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
State v. Scruggs 822 N.W.2d 631 Minn. 2012
The test is not merely “whether a reasonable person would believe he or she was not free to leave.”
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
State v. Thompson 788 N.W.2d 485 Minn. 2010
An interrogation is custodial if, based on all the surrounding circumstances, “a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe that he or she was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.” accord Staats, d at 211 .
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
State v. Heden 719 N.W.2d 689 Minn. 2006
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
State v. Staats 658 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 2003
We grant “considerable, but not unlimited, deference to a trial court’s fact-specific resolution of such an issue when the proper legal standard is applied.”
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Conger 652 N.W.2d 704 Minn. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
In Re the Welfare of G.S.P. 610 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
State v. Wiernasz 584 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1998
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412 Minn. 1998
1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) and State v. Champion
State v. Wiernasz 584 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 1998
The court of appeals, citing as its authoi’ agreed with the trial court and affirmed the suppression order.
State v. Sirvio 579 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1998
State v. Sirvio 579 N.W.2d 478 Minn. 1998
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
State v. Miller 573 N.W.2d 661 Minn. 1998
( (further citations omitted)).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by