David T. Schultz
How Judge Schultz decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
On Fourth Amendment suppression, Schultz applies the independent-source doctrine rigorously: he will acknowledge that a warrantless seizure violated the Fourth Amendment yet still recommend denying suppression where a later, validly obtained warrant means the evidence would have been (and was) acquired by lawful means -- focusing the analysis on whether law enforcement would have sought a warrant and whether it was supported by untainted probable cause.
“Judge Schultz agreed that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, but recommends denying Lazzaro's motion to suppress under the independent-source doctrine.”
On vagueness challenges he enforces the Eighth Circuit's sequencing rule (Bramer/Koech): a defendant must first prevail on an as-applied vagueness challenge before a facial challenge is ripe, so a vagueness motion to dismiss filed before the factual record is developed is recommended DENIED as premature (without prejudice), not on the merits.
“As Judge Schultz explained in the R&R, this facial challenge is also premature, as a defendant must prevail on an as-applied challenge before raising a facial challenge.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendant's motion to suppress [ECF No. 127] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Five, Six, and Seven as unconstitutionally vague [ECF No. 132] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 94] is DENIED.”
“Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Docket No. 95] is DENIED.”
“The Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Schultz-assigned dockets confirmed from the docket records. He sits in two roles. As a referral magistrate he handles pretrial matters in cases captioned under an Article III district judge. By the parties' consent under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) he is the final decision-maker, and a large share of that consent work is the District of Minnesota's Social Security appeals docket, where he routinely decides the claimant's and the Commissioner's cross-motions for summary judgment on the administrative record. He also takes consent civil matters in other areas -- insurance (Ramirez v. State Farm, a removed auto case that the parties consented to him and then resolved by dismissal in 2020), a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action (Borup v. The CJS Solutions Group, consent, heavily litigated through discovery before terminating in 2022), motor-vehicle and product-liability diversity suits, and employment matters -- alongside criminal duty assignments. The reach of his Social Security docket is the most distinctive feature of his caseload.
Put Judge Schultz's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Schultz actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Schultz's own signed orders and cites them.