Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Vonderharr, 733 N.W.2d 847.

17 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
31, 1994); see also State v. Vonderharr , (noting that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety maintains driver’s license records to “provide current information about the license status of drivers to ensure that only drivers with valid licenses operate motor vehicles in the state”).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
See Klamar, d at 696 (concluding that officer’s observations of odor of alcohol emanating from vehicle, coupled with other circumstances indicating that driver may be impaired, is sufficient to justify further intrusions)
State of Minnesota v. Nicholas David Butze 9 N.W.3d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Explained State of Minnesota v. Nicholas David Butze 9 N.W.3d 582 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(adopting the holdings in United States v. Torres -Villalobos, 487 8 F.3d 607, 612-13 (8th Cir. 2007) and United States v. Urqhart , 469 F.3d 745, 748-49 (8th Cir. 2006) and applying that reasoning to conclude that admission of Department of Public Service records did not violate the def
In re the Marriage of: Jane Ann Holm, petitioner, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
7 Vonderharr, 0 n.2 (Minn. App. 2007) (addressing issues decided in orders in same appeal).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Minnesota Department of Public Safety , https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/dvs/Pages/records- request-procedure.aspx (last visited April 2, 2020) (providing that only criminal enforcement, court agencies, and government agencies have access to driving records, whereas ordinary citizens must submit form and pay fee to receive certified driving record); see also State v. Vonderharr , (“[T]he primary purpose of DPS driver’s-license records is to provide current information about the license status of
Garrett Thomas Cekalla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State v. Vonderharr , –55 (Minn. App. 2007) (concluding that requesting a PBT and general on -site questioning during an investigative stop does not require a Miranda warning).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Michael David Groschen, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (odor of alcohol and bloodshot and watery eyes); State v. Vonderharr , (odor of alcohol and admission of drinking); (odor of alcohol), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, (odor of alcohol and bloodshot and watery eyes); State v. Vonderharr , (odor of alcohol and admission of drinking); State v. Lopez , (odor of alcohol), review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Lee Anthony Holmes Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(holding department of safety records not testimonial because (a) not produced for the purpose of prosecution, (b) prepared before charges were filed, and (c) produced before incident leading to charges).
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Tayari-Garrett 841 N.W.2d 644 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Whether a record is testimonial depends on whether it was “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” (quotation omitted) (holding department of safety records not testimonial because (a) not prepared for the purpose of prosecution, (b) prepared before charges were filed, and (c) prepared before incident leading to charges).
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Jackson 764 N.W.2d 612 Minn. Ct. App. 2009