Arbitration Between Minnesota State Patrol Troopers Ass'n Ex Rel. Pince v. State, Department of Public Safety
Cited by
Criticized in 1
- Oluf Johnson, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
- Kristin M. Schumacher, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Cree Rae Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
- Sames v. State 805 N.W.2d 565 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
- State v. Ward 580 N.W.2d 67 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
- State v. Kahn 555 N.W.2d 15 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
- County of Hennepin v. Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Local 19 527 N.W.2d 821 Minn. 1995
- Ascher v. Commissioner of Public Safety 527 N.W.2d 122 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Albrecht 465 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1991
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Herbst 395 N.W.2d 399
- State v. Wiley 366 N.W.2d 265
- McGrath v. State 312 N.W.2d 438
- Cournoyer v. American Television & Radio Co. 83 N.W.2d 409
- State v. Doyle 336 N.W.2d 247
- State v. Gabbert 411 N.W.2d 209
- Grudem Brothers Co. v. Great Western Piping Corp. 213 N.W.2d 920
Opinion text
FORSBERG, Judge (concurring specially): I concur in the decision of the majority, but have some reservations about certain aspects of the opinion. I do not believe that the exclusionary rule which is already in decline in criminal law should be extended to civil cases even though some deterrence in specific cases may be present. Moreover, even if the exclusionary rule is extended to civil cases, the evidence in this case would clearly be admitted under the “good faith” exception to the fourth amendment exclusionary rule. Curiously, the majority bases its decision on the incriminating statements of Rodney Pince which, if the exclusionary rule applies in this case, would clearly be excluda-ble as fruits of the poisoned tree.