DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Carter, 569 N.W.2d 169.

26 citing documents.

  • State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
  • Carlos Orlando Olivas-Varela, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
    at 25 ( rev’d on other grounds, Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469 (1998)).
  • State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
  • State v. Stephenson 760 N.W.2d 22 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
    To establish a protected interest, a defendant must demonstrate (1) “a subjective expectation of privacy” and (2) that this expectation “was reasonable in light of ‘longstanding social customs that serve functions recognized as valuable by society.’ ” (quoting Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98 , 110 S.Ct.
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
  • State v. Gail 713 N.W.2d 851 Minn. 2006
    When we examine “whether a defendant can bring a claim asserting a violation of his or her Fourth Amendment rights, the issue is ‘whether the disputed search * * * has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.’ ” ( (Carter I), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 83 , 119 S.Ct.
  • State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
  • State v. Carter 697 N.W.2d 199 Minn. 2005
    See, (holding that a police officer who left a sidewalk, climbed over bushes and peered through a gap in a home’s blinds to observe drug-related activity performed search under Fourth Amendment), rev’d on other grounds, 525 U.S. 83 , 119 5.
  • State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • State v. Voss 683 N.W.2d 846 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    “A search occurs whenever government agents intrude upon an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (citing California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 , 106 S.Ct.
  • Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
  • Haase v. Commissioner of Public Safety 679 N.W.2d 743 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
    -77 (Minn.1997), rev’d on other grounds sub nom.
  • State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
  • State v. McBride 666 N.W.2d 351 Minn. 2003
    Thus, in determining whether a defendant can bring a claim asserting a violation of his .or her Fourth Amendment rights, the issue is “ ‘whether the disputed search * * * has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect.’ ” (quoting Rakas, 439 U.S. at 140 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Ture 632 N.W.2d 621 Minn. 2001
  • State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
  • State v. Carter 596 N.W.2d 654 Minn. 1999
    (citing Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution).
  • State v. Wilson 594 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • State v. Wilson 594 N.W.2d 268 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    *270 ANALYSIS I Before a criminal defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained in alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment, the defendant must show that he is the “proper party to assert the claim of illegality and to seek the remedy of exclusion.” overruled on other grounds by Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 , 119 S.Ct.
  • Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
  • Tracht v. Commissioner of Public Safety 592 N.W.2d 863 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
    -74 (Minn.1997), rev’d on other grounds sub now,., Minnesota v. Carter, — U.S. -, 119 S.Ct.
  • State v. Reynolds 578 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Reynolds 578 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
  • State v. Johns 569 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1997
  • State v. Johns 569 N.W.2d 180 Minn. 1997
    -179 (Minn.), the decision of the court of appeals is reversed.