Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Aguirre, 295 N.W.2d 79.

35 citing documents.

State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Aguirre , , 82 (Minn. 1980) (interpreting Minn. Stat. § 169.121 , subd.
State of Minnesota v. Adam Blaine Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Adam Blaine Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“[T]he constitutional prerequisite to the warrantless nonconsensual removal of blood of a conscious or unconscious person is the same: probable cause plus exigent circumstances.”
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavish 868 N.W.2d 670 Minn. 2015
-82 (Minn.1980) (stating that "the constitutional prerequisite to the warrantless nonconsensual removal of blood of a conscious or unconscious driver” is "probable cause plus exigent circumstances”); (stating that the probable cause that is required for purpose
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
State v. Shriner 751 N.W.2d 538 Minn. 2008
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Shriner 739 N.W.2d 432 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Lee 585 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1998
State v. Lee 585 N.W.2d 378 Minn. 1998
Our starting point is the same as the court of appeals’ starting point
State v. Lee 577 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Lee 577 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Schauer 501 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Schauer 501 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973); 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.4(6), n. 19, at 343 (1978 & Supp.1985).
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Aschnewitz 483 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Aschnewitz 483 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
(constitutional prerequisite for nonconsen-sual removal of blood is probable cause plus exigent circumstances).
State v. Scott 473 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Scott 473 N.W.2d 375 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dittel 464 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
State v. Dittel 464 N.W.2d 601 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
the supreme court stated that warrantless nonconsensual blood test results are admissible in a misdemeanor DWI prosecution where the evidence was obtained at a time when police reasonably believed defendant was guilty of criminal negligence.
State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
State v. Joon Kyu Kim 398 N.W.2d 544 Minn. 1987
Minn.1984); State v. Martinez, 270 N.W.
State v. Stransky 384 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Stransky 384 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The court correctly recognized, however
Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1985
Tyler v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 275 Minn. 1985
2000 , 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973); 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 5.4(b), n. 19, at 343 (1978 & Supp.1985).
State v. Olson 342 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Olson 342 N.W.2d 638 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
State v. Speak 339 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1983
State v. Speak 339 N.W.2d 741 Minn. 1983
“The purpose of the statute is to protect ordinary drivers suspected of driving while under the influence from being subjected to nonconsensual removal of blood even in situations where the Constitution would allow the nonconsensual removal of blood.” Thus, in the ordinary case where the officer merel
State v. Waicelunas 672 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983