Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Olson, 342 N.W.2d 638.

80 citing documents.

Feil v. Commissioner of Public Safety 383 N.W.2d 420 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Roach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Roach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 380 N.W.2d 134 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Berge v. Commissioner of Public Safety 370 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stiles v. Commissioner of Public Safety 369 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Stiles v. Commissioner of Public Safety 369 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Swapinski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 368 N.W.2d 322 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 366 N.W.2d 347 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38, 42
Sarb v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Sarb v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 405 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Clow v. Commissioner of Public Safety 362 N.W.2d 360 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O'Neill v. Commissioner of Public Safety 361 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
O'Neill v. Commissioner of Public Safety 361 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Keane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 360 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Keane v. Commissioner of Public Safety 360 N.W.2d 357 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Vertina v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Vertina v. Commissioner of Public Safety 356 N.W.2d 412 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
“Reasonable and probable grounds” to believe a person was driving while under the influence of alcohol has been equated with the term “probable cause,” which in turn has been defined as “a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in believing the accused to be guilty.” Id.
Nohre v. Commissioner of Public Safety 355 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Nohre v. Commissioner of Public Safety 355 N.W.2d 757 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
e in violation of section 169.-121 [the DWI statute] and one of the following conditions exist: (1) the person has been lawfully placed under arrest for violation of section 169.121, or an ordinance in conformity with it * * * “Reasonable and probable grounds” to believe a person has been driving while under the influence of alcohol has been equated with the term “probable cause.”
Giddings v. Commissioner of Public Safety 354 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Giddings v. Commissioner of Public Safety 354 N.W.2d 579 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
-41 (Minn.Ct.App.1984), “In reviewing an officer’s probable cause determination ‘great deference’ should be paid by reviewing courts.” DECISION Officer Stroshane had reasonable and probable grounds to believe respondent had been driving while under the influence.
Martin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Martin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 353 N.W.2d 202 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
we said: An after-the-fact scrutiny should not take the form of a de novo review.
Hewitt v. Commissioner of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Hewitt v. Commissioner of Public Safety 352 N.W.2d 75 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
we stated these standards on the determination of probable cause for implied consent testing purposes: There is no formula by which to judge the reasonableness of a given case.
Pan v. Commissioner of Public Safety 347 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Pan v. Commissioner of Public Safety 347 N.W.2d 545 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Here, the trial court's role was “to ensure that the officer had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed at the time of invoking the implied consent law.”