reasonable articulable suspicion standard (Minnesota) · Go Syfert
← Minnesota issues

reasonable articulable suspicion standard in Minnesota

5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Timberlakegreen
minn · 2008 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2011–2016
2 sentences

2016The reasonable- articulable-suspicion standard is not high, but the suspicion must be “something more than an unarticulated hunch,” State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173, 182 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted), and more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion,” Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d at 393 (quotation omitted).

2011State v. Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

22
Terry v. Ohiogreen
scotus · 1968 · cited in 2 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2003–2016
2 sentences

2016An officer “must be able to point to something that 4 objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” Davis, 732 N.W.2d at 182 (quotation omitted); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22 , 88 S. Ct. at 1880 .

2016An officer “must be able to point to something that 4 objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” Davis, 732 N.W.2d at 182 (quotation omitted); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22 , 88 S. Ct. at 1880 .

12
State v. Davisgreen
minn · 2007 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
2 sentences

2016The reasonable- articulable-suspicion standard is not high, but the suspicion must be “something more than an unarticulated hunch,” State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173, 182 (Minn. 2007) (quotation omitted), and more than an “inchoate and unparticularized suspicion,” Timberlake, 744 N.W.2d at 393 (quotation omitted).

2016An officer “must be able to point to something that 4 objectively supports the suspicion at issue.” Davis, 732 N.W.2d at 182 (quotation omitted); see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22 , 88 S. Ct. at 1880 .

11
State v. Cartergreen
minn · 2005 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015Despite the fact that the language of Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution is substantially similar to the language of the Fourth Amendment, 1 McMurray asks us to interpret Article I, Section 10, to provide greater protection than the Fourth Amendment because in his view the United States Supreme Court’s reasoning in Greenwood is not persuasive. 2 To support his argument, McMurray relies heavily on the Greenwood dissent and the decisions of a minority of other state courts. 3 1 We have said that Article I, Section 10, and the Fourth Amendment are “textually identical,” State v.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr. green
minn · 2016
1 sentence

2017Id. at 486 .

12017–2017
Michigan v. Long green
scotus · 1983
2 sentences

2003This is no more and no less than was required in Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ] and [Michigan v.] Long [ 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 (1983) ], and as in those cases, we think this balance is the proper one.

2003This is no more and no less than was required in Terry [v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ] and [Michigan v.] Long [ 463 U.S. 1032 , 103 S.Ct. 3469 (1983) ], and as in those cases, we think this balance is the proper one.

12003–2003

Where else courts name it

ME 18 (1994–2023) MD 7 (1992–2022) MN 5 (2003–2017) IL 4 (1997–2016) DC 3 (2021–2025) GA 3 (2014–2014) UT 2 (1997–2017) VA 2 (2007–2011) DE 2 (2018–2024) NC 2 (2009–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check