State v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentWahl, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The activities of the defendant in the instant case did not justify an investigative stop under the principles articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879-80, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). It is true, as the majority notes, that the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution permits officers to temporarily stop citizens for investigative purposes if the officer has “a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity ‘may be afoot.’ ” United States v. Sokolow, — U.S. -, *828109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). In…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. SokolowSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Bowers v. HardwickSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Florida v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.