Cited by

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

71 citing documents.

Tyler Allen Wolters v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2026
See, rev. denied (Minn. June 10 15, 2004)
Daud Dayib Gamadid v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2026
rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Rory Lee Sisco 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. Daniel Erang Olson 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 v. Peter Michael Dziuk 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 v. State of Minnesota, Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
(explaining that refusing a PBT —uncooperative behavior—serves as indicia of criminal activity).
State of Minnesota v. Eric Anthony Klaysmat 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 v. Commissioner of Public Safety 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 v. Darcy Wayne Christianson Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Donald Newton MacElree Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Id.; rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
Jesse Lee Helget (A20-1036) v. Commissioner of Public Safety, State of Minnesota, vs. Jesse Lee Helget (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 v. James Paul Aery 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 v. Nancy Jean Feltus Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Tonia Nicole Williams 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 v. Raphael Phares Spencer 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 v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2021
review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Casey Jo Eggum 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 v. Levar Randolph Mitchell 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 v. Christy Lynn Tjaden Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. K ier, review denied (Minn. June 15, 2004).
State of Minnesota v. Jason David Utto 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 v. Ali Joshua Jalil Robida 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 v. Ramiro Alejandro Pena 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 v. Johnson Bankole Oluwalowo 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 v. Pierre Lemar Burgess 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 v. Scott David Quall 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 v. Joshua Alvin Peterson 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).
Adam Lindsay Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A18-0970), State of Minnesota (A18-1103), vs. Adam Lindsay Williams 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 v. Arcelus Antonio Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
5 the presumptive sentence are present, a court must exercise its discretion and consider the factors.”
State of Minnesota v. Addison Roger Creviston-Lerud 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 v. Christian Alfo Cano Fernandez 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 v. Sedrick Lamar Holt 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 v. Richard Robert Rodriguez 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 v. Craig Edward Dauffenbach 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