State v. Amundson
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
In this appeal from convictions and a sentence for first- and fifth-degree con*563trolled substance crime, appellant argues that the warrant authorizing the search of his house was not supported by probable cause and that the search-warrant application did not contain sufficient information supporting the no-knock and nighttime provisions of the warrant. Appellant also argues that the enhancement of his sentence under the firearm-enhancement statute violated his Sixth Amendment rights under Blakely. We conclude that the information supporting the no-knock and nighttime…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Richards v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- State v. LothenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Whitten v. City of OmahaDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 2016
- State v. AmundsonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006