State v. Balenger

46 Citing cases

  1. State v. Reynolds

    A19-2080 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2021)

    A Terry stop should be minimally invasive, and any invasiveness should be limited to the protective purpose of allowing the officer to pursue the investigation without fear of violence. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146, 92 S. Ct. 1921, 1923 (1972); see also State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Minn. App. 2003) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 19-20, 88 S. Ct. at 1879), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).

  2. State v. Johnson

    No. A16-1887 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2017)

    There is no bright-line test to distinguish an investigatory detention from an unlawful arrest. State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003). "Unduly intrusive police conduct may, but does not automatically, transform an otherwise legitimate investigative stop into an unlawful arrest." Id.

  3. State v. Neal

    A13-0990 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 27, 2014)

    Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 137 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).

  4. State v. Ware

    No. A23-0578 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2024)

    We review the validity of a Terry stop by applying a two-step inquiry: first, we consider "whether the stop was justified at its inception"; second, we consider whether the actions of the police during the stop "were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the stop." State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 137 (Minn.App. 2003) (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003). A. Initial Stop of Ware

  5. State v. Winge

    No. A20-1609 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 7, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    We are not persuaded otherwise by the state's reliance on Navarette and State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003), to argue that police were justified in stopping Winge.

  6. State v. Palmer

    A18-1073 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 13, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    In determining whether a police officer's conduct turned an investigative stop into an unlawful arrest, courts must specifically consider the aggressiveness of the police methods and the intrusiveness of the stop against the justification for the use of such tactics, i.e., whether the officer had a sufficient basis to fear for his or her safety.State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Minn. App. 2003) (emphasis added) (quotation and citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).

  7. State v. Tubbs

    No. A06-2331 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2008)

    We disagree. In order to make a legal investigatory stop or seizure, Minnesota law requires that the police must be able to show a reasonable suspicion based on `specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.' State v. Davis, 732 N.W.2d 173, 182 (Minn. 2007) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880 (1968)); see also State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 137 (Minn.App. 2003) (stating that an investigatory stop, a Terry stop, and a seizure are the same things), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).

  8. State v. Haines

    A19-1354 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2020)

    When determining whether an investigative stop is transformed into an arrest, "courts must specifically consider the aggressiveness of the police methods and the intrusiveness of the stop against the justification for the use of such tactics, i.e., whether the officer had a sufficient basis to fear for his or her safety." State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).

  9. State v. Smith

    No. A18-1635 (Minn. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2019)

    In determining whether a police officer's conduct turned an investigative stop into an unlawful arrest, courts must specifically consider the aggressiveness of the police methods and the intrusiveness of the stop against the justification for the use of such tactics, i.e., whether the officer had a sufficient basis to fear for his or her safety.State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Minn. App. 2003) (quotation and citations omitted), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).

  10. State v. Scott

    A16-0557 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2018)

    "[T]he use of force reasonable under the circumstances will be permitted without a showing of probable cause when force is necessary for the protection of the investigating officers and the degree of force used [was] reasonable." State v. Balenger, 667 N.W.2d 133, 139 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 21, 2003).