Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kier, 678 N.W.2d 672.

70 citing documents.

Daud Dayib Gamadid, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2026
In the context of a DWI arrest, “[a]n officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
John Frederick Haugen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
To arrest a person for suspected DWI, “[a]n officer needs only one objective 11 indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“A n officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“An officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.”
State of Minnesota v. Jasmine Green Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jasmine Green Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Moreover, “[a]n officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“When factors that may justify departing from the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.” rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
Royce James Stute, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“Common indicia of intoxication include an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and an uncooperative attitude.”
Jesse Bruce Jensen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(explaining that refusing a PBT —uncooperative behavior—serves as indicia of criminal activity).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
And we are not persuaded by Klaysmat’s argument that the deputy’s observations about his speech patterns are not enough to create probable cause because “[a]n officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotat ion omitted).
Thushari Rangika Alahapperuma v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Thushari Rangika Alahapperuma v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
“An officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.”
James Kevin Obowa, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Lewison Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Daniel James Lewison Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Moreover, “[a]n officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Id.; rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
, A22-0103 Minn. Ct. App. 2023
(“Common indicia of intoxication include an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and an uncooperative attitude.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(“Common indicia of intoxication include an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and an uncooperative attitude.”); see also Franko v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(acknowledging that recognized indicia of impairment include an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and an uncooperative attitude), review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“An officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” State v. Kier , Holtz v. Comm’r of Pub.
Lawrence Silas Kostohryz, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“When factors that may justify departing from the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.” State v. Kier , review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When factors that may justify departing from the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.” review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. K ier, review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“When factors that may justify departing from the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.” review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When factors that may justify departing from the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.” State v. Kier
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
If such circumstances are present, then a district court “must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.” review denied ( M i n n .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When factors that may justify departing fro m the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(finding police officer’s observation of driver’s bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and strong odor 7 of alcohol sufficient to establish probable cause).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
“When factors that may justify departing from the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
678 (Minn. App. 2004) (concluding that an officer had probable cause to arrest appellant for DWI when the officer observed appellant’s strong alcoholic odor, watery eyes, and slurred speech after appellant exited his car).
A18-1103 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, e.g. , Klamar, d at 696 (concluding that bloodshot and watery ey es are indicia of intoxication); (articulating that “bloodshot and watery eyes” and “slurred speech” are included in the common indicia of intoxication).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.”
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
This court has stated that “[a]n officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence” and that “[c]ommon indicia of intoxication include an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and an uncooperative attitude.”1 1 Similarly, an odor of alcohol alone may give rise to probable ca use to search an automobile for open bottles of alcohol .
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(concluding that an officer’s observation of the odor of alcohol and bloodshot and watery eyes justified the expansion of a traffic stop to investigate a suspicion of impaired driving); State v. Kier , (“An officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence.” (quotation omitted)).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See, d 672, 674 (Minn. App. 2004) (during the officer’s initial conversation with the driver, he 7 observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the driver’s breath, bloodshot watery eyes, and slurred speech).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Common indicia of intoxication include an odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, and an uncooperative attitude.” State v. Kier
In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Welfare of I.N.A. 902 N.W.2d 635 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Ass’n, (quotation omitted); -76 (Minn. App. 2004) (applying the factors in Watson to a criminal case), review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alexander Nathan Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Alexander Nathan Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Damien Tito Jones Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 856; (noting that odor of alcohol, bloodshot and watery eyes, and slurred speech are indicia of intoxication); (noting that poor coordination is one of the “usual signs of being intoxicated”);.