Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711.

167 citing documents.

Junious Taylor, Jr. v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2015
at 905 (d 711, 717 (Minn. 1999) (stating that predatory-offender registration is regulatory and not punitive because it does not require affirmative disability or restraint; registration statutes are not typically regarded as punishment; and registration does not involve confinement and is not intended to be retributive)).
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Matthew Allan White v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
The due-process clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “prohibit ‘certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’” (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S. Ct. 975, 983 (1990)).
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Melvin Matthew Willems Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Willems’s substantive due-process challenges The Due Process Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “prohibit ‘certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’” (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125, 110 S. Ct. 975, 983 (1990)).
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Richard Handsome Carter Minn. Ct. App. 2015
d 711, 714 (Minn. 1999).
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr. 859 N.W.2d 762 Minn. 2015
The due process clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions “prohibit ‘certain arbitrary, wrongful government actions, regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’ ” (quoting Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125 , 110 S.Ct.
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Rickford Rehmann Munger 858 N.W.2d 814 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Michael James Larson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Cf. Gunderson v. Hvass, 339 F.3d 639, 641, 642–43 (8th Cir. 2003) (providing that assault of which defendant was convicted occurred simultaneous to charged sexual conduct); n.4 (Minn. 1999) (holding that offenses arose out of same set of circumstances when defendant admitted the assault offense was aggravated by sexual conduct soon after assault).
State of Minnesota v. Carl Antonio Wilks Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Jeffrey Michael Jepson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Ivan Ray Vaughan v. Wade Setter, Superintendant, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in his official capacity Minn. Ct. App. 2014
To satisfy substantive due process, all 4 statutes must “provide a reasonable means to a permissible objective.”
State v. Melchert-Dinkel 844 N.W.2d 13 Minn. 2014
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Dean v. City of Winona 843 N.W.2d 249 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(stating that “even if a fundamental right is not implicated, in order to pass constitutional muster [a] registration statute must still meet the rational basis standard of review”).
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 837 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2013
Marriage of Haefele v. Haefele 837 N.W.2d 703 Minn. 2013
State ex rel. Commissioner of Human Services v. Buchmann 830 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State ex rel. Commissioner of Human Services v. Buchmann 830 N.W.2d 895 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Ulrich 829 N.W.2d 429 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
In re Individual 35W Bridge Litigation 806 N.W.2d 820 Minn. 2011
State v. Cox 798 N.W.2d 517 Minn. 2011
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
State v. Lopez 778 N.W.2d 700 Minn. 2010
§ 243.166] is to create an offender registry to assist law enforcement with investigations.”
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
In Re the Risk Level Determination of G.G. 771 N.W.2d 64 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
The purpose of the sexual-predator registration statute has been described in consistent terms in caselaw, e.g., “to create an offender registry to assist law enforcement with investigations,” “to monitor sex offenders released into the community,” “to keep law *68 enforcement informed as to a predatory offender’s whereabouts,” and to provide “law-enforcement officials with the wherea
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
State v. Lopez 764 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, License No. 279, Vin 3VWRA29M2YM125643 754 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, License No. 279, Vin 3VWRA29M2YM125643 754 N.W.2d 587 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Ehmke 752 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
As the state notes, such a result is contrary to the registration statute and the statutory goal of creating “an offender registry to assist law enforcement with investigations.”
State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Jedlicka 747 N.W.2d 580 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
(addressing predatory offender registration requirement in appeal brought by released prisoner seeking declaratory judgment against Commissioner of Corrections to enjoin commissioner from requiring him to register).
State v. Jones 729 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2007
State v. Jones 729 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2007
Specifically, we must address Jones’s mandate a conclusion that section 243.166is civil/regulatory in nature.
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
Council of Independent Tobacco Manufacturers of America v. State 713 N.W.2d 300 Minn. 2006
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
Heine v. Simon 702 N.W.2d 752 Minn. 2005
State v. Jones 700 N.W.2d 556 Minn. Ct. App. 2005