Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Brooks, 838 N.W.2d 563.

341 citing documents.

Ryan Paul Jirik v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 887 N.W.2d 281 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
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
d 563, 568 (Minn. 2013).
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Nicole Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mitchell Edwin Morehouse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Mitchell Edwin Morehouse v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
sample[] from someone constitutes a ‘search’ under the Fourth Amendment.”
State of Minnesota v. Tiffany Nicole Phillips Minn. Ct. App. 2016
A warrant is not required “if the subject of the search consents.”
Brett Richard Kline v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moreover, the supreme court has recognized the legislature’s intention to “give those who drive on Minnesota roads a right to refuse the chemical test.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Debra Lee Fawcett 884 N.W.2d 380 Minn. 2016
Michael Paul Tulenchek-Armstrong v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael Paul Tulenchek-Armstrong v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But because drivers have a right to refuse a breath test, the ICA “makes clear that drivers have a choice whether to submit to testing.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad William Mosher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Chad William Mosher Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Michael John Frank v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Generally, a warrantless search conducted without probable cause is per se unconstitutional, but a search warrant is not required “if the subject of the search consents.”
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ian Jorgen Crocker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Paige Julieanna Wentzel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Ian Jorgen Crocker v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
And the supreme court has stated that “the Minnesota Legislature has given those who drive on Minnesota roads a right to refuse the chemical test.” (citing Minn. Stat. § 169A.52, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Paige Julieanna Wentzel Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Travis Richard Otto Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcia Jean Schlingmann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcia Jean Schlingmann Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jodie Kay Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Jodie Kay Raskovich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court has held that “a driver’s decision to agree to take a test is not coerced simply because Minnesota has attached the penalty of making it a crime to refuse the test.”
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Marsha Katherine Millonig v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
But a search warrant is not required “if the subject of the search consents.”
Shannon Forstrom Walsh v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Arizona v. Francisco L Encinas Valenzuela 371 P.3d 627 Ariz. 2016
Roger William Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Roger William Kuehn v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Kurt Nathan Rud Minn. Ct. App. 2016
He argues, however, -69 (Minn. 2013) indicates that his consent was involuntary.
Bridget Colleen Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Bridget Colleen Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2016
The supreme court has recognized that the “choice to submit or refuse to take the test may be a difficult one.” d 563, 570 (Minn. 2013) (emphasis added) (quotation omitted), cert.
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Lisa Dorthea Moodie Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Moodie asserts that these references are important because a series of numbers and letters beginning with the letter “W” indicates “whiskey plates” in Minnesota, meaning “license plates issued to a person who had their driver's license suspended for alcohol- 3 related offenses.”
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Andrew Joseph Sauter v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Andrew Joseph Sauter v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552, 1558 (2013)
Troy K. Scheffler v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Wayne Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The voluntariness "analysis requires that we consider the totality of the circumstances, 1 including the nature of the encounter, the kind of person the defendant is, and what was said and how it was said."' ().
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Adam Dale Muellner Minn. Ct. App. 2015
At a hearing on the 2 motion, the district court asked whether the parties preferred a speedy ruling or to “hold[] off [until] the [Minnesota] Supreme Court gives us some guidance,” referring specifically to the pending “Brooks case.”
Damon Dewitt Tackett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Damon Dewitt Tackett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
This guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures establishes the right to privacy “as one of the unique values of our civilization,” and “with few exceptions, stays the hands of the police unless they have a search warrant.” cert.