9 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2024 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ybarra v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2024Ybarra involved a warrant that authorized the search of a bar and a bartender for evidence of possession of controlled substances. 444 U.S. at 88 . 2016See, e.g., Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91 , 100 S. Ct. 338, 342 (1979) (holding unconstitutional the search of a bar patron who happened to be located in a bar during execution of a warrant that authorized the search of the premises and the bartender for controlled substances). | 1 | 2 |
Carpenter v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2024Nor was the evidence Carbo left behind a mere consequence of his “venturing into the public sphere.” Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296, 310 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McBridegreen1 sentence2018See State v. McBride , 666 N.W.2d 351 , 361 (Minn. 2003) ("While we may interpret the Minnesota Constitution to provide more protection than the U.S. Constitution, it may not afford less."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chutegreen1 sentence2018See Jardines , 569 U.S. at 11 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 (stating that the "antiquity of the tools" is not relevant "when the government uses a physical intrusion to explore details of the home (including its curtilage)"); Chute , 908 N.W.2d at 585, 588 (concluding that an investigation conducted by a single officer in the curtilage of the home was a search). | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Jardinesgreen2 sentences2018See Jardines , 569 U.S. at 11 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 (stating that the "antiquity of the tools" is not relevant "when the government uses a physical intrusion to explore details of the home (including its curtilage)"); Chute , 908 N.W.2d at 585, 588 (concluding that an investigation conducted by a single officer in the curtilage of the home was a search). 2018See Jardines , 569 U.S. at 11 , 133 S.Ct. 1409 (stating that the "antiquity of the tools" is not relevant "when the government uses a physical intrusion to explore details of the home (including its curtilage)"); Chute , 908 N.W.2d at 585, 588 (concluding that an investigation conducted by a single officer in the curtilage of the home was a search). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. State, Department of Veterans Affairsgreen1 sentence1988See also Johnson v. State Department of Veterans Affairs, supra. In this context, it appears that the search requirement may no longer exist with respect to injuries occurring after 1983. 3 The diligent job search requirement also appears in a second context, in determining whether an injured worker is totally disabled. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brooks
green
1 sentence2015Brooks, 838 N.W.2d at 568 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kyllo v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Place and Edmond were decided before Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 , 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), where the warrantless use of a thermal-imaging device on a home suspected of containing heat-emitting lamps commonly used to grow marijuana was held to be a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2005Place and Edmond were decided before Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 , 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), where the warrantless use of a thermal-imaging device on a home suspected of containing heat-emitting lamps commonly used to grow marijuana was held to be a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Walton
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 383-84 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Mayer v. Erickson Decorators
green
2 sentences1988Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 2 (1982), quoted in footnote 2, supra. Thus, in Mayer v. Erickson Decorators, supra, this court denied both temporary total and temporary partial benefits because of an injured worker’s failure to search diligently for work within his limitations. 1988Minn.Stat. § 176.101, subd. 2 (1982), quoted in footnote 2, supra. Thus, in Mayer v. Erickson Decorators, supra , this court denied both temporary total and temporary partial benefits because of an injured worker's failure to search diligently for work within his limitations. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1965In State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , we held that a defendant who did not deny that he consented to a search and did not claim duress or coercion had the burden of proving lack of consent to a search by the police officers. 1965In State v. Harris, 265 Minn. 260 , 121 N. W. (2d) 327 , we held that a defendant who did not deny that he consented to a search and did not claim duress or coercion had the burden of proving lack of consent to a search by the police officers. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.