Legal Opinion
State v. Carter
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided July 13, 2004No. A03-1215PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION. CRIPPEN, Judge. *
Appellant challenges the validity of a dog sniff that subsequently served as a basis for the issuance of search warrants, arguing that officers needed a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the dog sniff for Fourth Amendment purposes. Because we find no precedent extending restrictions on dog-sniffing evidence to such an extent, we affirm.
FACTS
In June 2002, St. Paul police officers executed search warrants at the apartment of appellant Andre Lashon Carter, where illegal controlled substances were found, and in two storage units rented…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. JacobsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kyllo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- United States of America v. $ 404,905.00 in U.S. Currency, Stephen AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1999
- Uselman v. UselmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005