Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carter, 596 N.W.2d 654.

43 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
State of Minnesota v. Deshon Israel Bonnell Minn. 2026
may not contest the legality of the search or seizure.” (emphasis added).
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhm 880 N.W.2d 606 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Minnesota courts apply a two-step analysis to determine whether a defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a particular area.
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Danyelle Raymon Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Although the Minnesota Constitution may be interpreted to afford more protection to its citizens than is provided under the United States Constitution, a decision to interpret the Minnesota Constitution more expansively than the federal constitution should not be made “cavalierly.”
State of Minnesota v. Erica Ann Rohde 852 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Erica Ann Rohde 852 N.W.2d 260 Minn. 2014
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A defendant’s ‘rights to challenge any search under Article I, Section 10 of the *216 Minnesota Constitution are coextensive with [the defendant’s] rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.’ ’” -96 (Minn.2013) ().
State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
State v. Griffin 834 N.W.2d 688 Minn. 2013
A defendant’s “rights to challenge any search under Article I, Section *696 10 of the Minnesota Constitution are coextensive with [the defendant’s] rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Carlton v. State 816 N.W.2d 590 Minn. 2012
In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
In Re the Welfare of M.L.M. 781 N.W.2d 381 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(interpreting protections under these provisions as co-extensive in the absence of “ ‘radical’ or ‘sharp’ departures” of the United States Supreme Court from its precedent); (recognizing general principle favoring uniformity with the federal co
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Johnson 777 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
(interpreting protections under these provisions as co-extensive in the absence of “ ‘radical’ or ‘sharp’ departures” of the United States Supreme Court from its precedent); (recognizing general principle favoring uniformity with the federal co
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Jackson 741 N.W.2d 146 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Rodriguez 738 N.W.2d 422 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Mohs 726 N.W.2d 816 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
In 1999, we held “that appellants’ rights to challenge any search under Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution are coextensive with appellants’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Carter II).
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Carter, Harris, d at 97 ; Johnson, d at 405.
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Askerooth 681 N.W.2d 353 Minn. 2004
State v. Colosimo 669 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Sletten 664 N.W.2d 870 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
See, (holding short-term business guests engaged in illegal drug transactions lack legitimate expectation of privacy).
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
In Re the Welfare of B.R.K. 658 N.W.2d 565 Minn. 2003
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 645 N.W.2d 125 Minn. 2002
State v. Wiegand 621 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Wiegand 621 N.W.2d 476 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999
State v. Risk 598 N.W.2d 642 Minn. 1999