Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Holtz v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 340 N.W.2d 363.

94 citing documents.

Royce James Stute, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Jesse Bruce Jensen, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nicholas Gene Alleman v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Nicholas Gene Alleman v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Tyler Edward Connell, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Marianna Kretsu Maki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Safety , (“[A]n officer need only have one objective indication of intoxication to constitute reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is under the influence.”); rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
R e s p o n d e n t , Minn. 2021
C. Taylor next claims that Holtz v. Commissioner of Public Safety , requires an officer to observe at least one objective indicia of impairment for reasonable suspicion to exist, which was lacking here.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Safety , (stating that a police officer “need only have o ne objective indication of intoxication to constitute reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is unde r the influence”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Safety, (stating that a police officer “need only have one objective indication of intoxication to constitute reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is under the influence”).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Kathleen Margaret Eileen Ochs, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Otto v. Comm’r of Public Safety, (noting that an officer needs only one objective indication of impairment to expand the scope of the stop) (citing Holtz v. Comm’r of Public Safety, ).
Garrett Thomas Cekalla, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Brian John Blawat, et al., Appellants, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
Safety , d 363, 365 (Minn. App. 1983).
A18-1103 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety, (stating that “an officer need only have one objective indication of intoxication to constitute reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is under the influence”).
Kari A. Patnode, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety, -66 (Minn. App. 1983) (“While the pre ferred practice would be to read the form in its entirety, failure to [read the form in full] .
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Otto v. Comm'r Safety 924 N.W.2d 658 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety , , 365 (Minn. App. 1983).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Safety, d 363, 365 (Minn. App. 1983).
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Wade Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Marcus Wade Hall Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (stating officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence of alcohol).
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Bryan Anthony Hartshorn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Alan Krech v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Alan Krech v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (noting “bloodshot and watery eyes” and “odor of alcohol on the breath” in support of probable-cause determination).
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
James Fletcher Cameron v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (stating an officer needs only one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence).
Michelle MacDonald Shimota v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Michelle MacDonald Shimota v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Kier 678 N.W.2d 672 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Safety, Hasbrook v. Commissioner of Pub.
State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Laducer 676 N.W.2d 693 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Safety, (stating an officer *698 need only have one objective indication of intoxication to constitute probable cause to believe a person is under the influence).
Busch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 614 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Busch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 614 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Safety, (officer properly determined driver had refused testing when driver remained silent in response to questions about whether he understood his rights under implied consent advisory).
Heuton v. Commissioner of Public Safety 541 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Heuton v. Commissioner of Public Safety 541 N.W.2d 361 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Safety, (making clear that even single objective indication may be sufficient depending on circumstances); see Martin v. Commissioner of Pub.
Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 509 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Davis v. Commissioner of Public Safety 509 N.W.2d 380 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Safety, (bloodshot and watery eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, and uncooperative attitude).
McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 460 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Franko v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Franko v. Commissioner of Public Safety 432 N.W.2d 469 Minn. Ct. App. 1988
Holm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Holm v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 473 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Steinbrenner v. Commissioner of Public Safety 413 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Steinbrenner v. Commissioner of Public Safety 413 N.W.2d 557 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Commissioner of Public Safety v. Shewchuk 412 N.W.2d 434 Minn. Ct. App. 1987