Legal Opinion
State v. Munoz
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided April 22, 1986No. C4-85-1669PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
POPOVICH, Chief Judge.
Appellant Thomas Munoz appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine. He claims (1) the police lacked probable cause to make a warrantless search and a warrantless arrest and (2) the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove he was in possession of methamphetamine. We affirm.
FACTS
On or about November 14, 1985, sergeant-investigator Richard J. Freichels, narcotics division, St. Paul Police Department, received a telephone call from a confidential informant. They spoke for 10-15 minutes. The informant stated appellant Thomas Munoz had been…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Illinois v. GatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- United States v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- State v. MerrillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- State v. WahlbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. FlowersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. AshbrookSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. CollardCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- State v. DenisonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State v. DickeyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.