Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316.

218 citing documents.

Melissa Ann Lorsung v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. 2026
Melissa Ann Lorsung v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. 2026
(applying Minn. Stat. § 169.121, subd.
Charles Wayne Weyhrauch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
To achieve that goal, the term “physical control” is given “the broadest possible effect.” d 316, 319 (Minn. 1981).
A23-1811 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Scott Nelson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jennifer Leu v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jennifer Leu v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Luke Mitchell Rebentisch, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Safety v. Juncewski , - 21 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Kevin David Jante, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
However, the supreme court has held that the term is intended to cover the “broadest range of conduct” and must be given the “broadest possible effect.” State v. Juncewski , 19 (Minn. 1981).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
), review denied (Minn. Feb.
Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety v. Juncewski , Vondrachek v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Safety v. Juncewski , (quotation omitted).
John Joseph Vondrachek, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
James Donald Johnson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ralph Ian Richardson, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Kramer v. Comm’r of Pub.
Keith Charles Lexvold v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Keith Charles Lexvold v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating that an officer has the authority to administer a preliminary breath test where “specific and articulable facts” form the basis to believe that a driver is impaired); (“An officer need not possess probable cause to believe that a D
Richard Lavern O�Gara v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Richard Lavern O�Gara v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that an officer appropriately administered a PBT based on the officer’s reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person had been driving, operating, or controlling a motor vehicle while impaired); (determining an officer’s “observat
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that administration of field sobriety testing was reasonable, based on an officer’s observations of odor of alcohol and defendant’s bloodshot and watery eyes); (citing Jun
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that administration of field sobriety testing based on officer’s observations of odor of alcohol and Klamar’s bloodshot and watery eyes was reasonable); d 729, 730 (Minn. App. 1986) (stating that an offi
Randy Lee Torgeson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Randy Lee Torgeson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(holding that an officer appropriately administered field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test because the officer had 3 reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person had been driving while impaired)
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Benjamin David Telschow v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating an officer has the authority to administer a preliminary breath test where “specific and articulable facts” form the basis to believe that a driver is impaired).
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(stating standard for administering PBT is articulable suspicion); State v. Vievering, 383 (“An officer need not possess probable cause to believe that a DWI violation has occurred in order to administer a preliminar
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
(holding that an officer appropriately administered field sobriety tests and a preliminary breath test because the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person had been driving while impaired); (determining that the officer’s
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John West, IV Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Mitchell Frank Mack v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.41, subd.
Nicholas Bruce Morse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Nicholas Bruce Morse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Karen Marie O�Farrell Minn. Ct. App. 2014
-20 (Minn. 1981) (defendant in physical control when seated in driver’s seat, slumped over steering wheel, parked on the side of the road with the key in the ignition).
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
State v. Fleck 777 N.W.2d 233 Minn. 2010
We have held that “physical control” should be given “the broadest possible effect.” (holding that the statute was amended to modify the requirement that a driver be in “actual physical control” by deleting the word “actual” so that the statute be given the broadest possible effect).