Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Kline, 351 N.W.2d 388.

24 citing documents.

Jesse M. Gregorich v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2022
This court has previously stated that “giving a Miranda warning in an implied consent situation can be confusing to the driver” because the warning implies that there are no penalties for refusing to cooperate when there are “substantial penalties.” Butler v. Comm’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Maslah Abdirahman Mohamed Minn. Ct. App. 2019
d 388, 390 (Minn. App. 1984) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 477-78, 86 S. Ct. at 1629 -30) (“General on -the-site questioning as to facts surrounding a crime or other general questioning of citizens in the fact -finding process is not affected by [ Miranda]” because “[i]n such situations the compelling atmosphere inherent
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
28, 2018); State v. Kline , , 390 (Minn. App. 1984) ("[G]iving a Miranda warning in an implied consent situation can be confusing to the driver."); Butler v. Comm'r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Ethan Malcolm Shepherd Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Similarly, a deputy sheriff found a vehicle “stuck in the ditch” and engaged in “general on-site questioning” of the vehicle’s driver, asking questions such as, “‘Are you the driver?’, ‘Have you been drinking?’, ‘How much?’” Id.
State of Minnesota v. Wayne Alan Menter Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Similarly, a deputy sheriff found a vehicle “stuck in the ditch” and engaged in “general on-site questioning” of the vehicle’s driver, asking questions such as, “‘Are you the driver?’, ‘Have you been drinking?’, ‘How much?’ ” Id.
Jeremy Ray Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jeremy Ray Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Vonderharr 733 N.W.2d 847 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Werner 725 N.W.2d 767 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
-05 (Minn.1993) (.Miranda warning not required for “[o]n-the-scene” questioning, despite fact that defendant was handcuffed); -90 (Minn.App.1984) (noting that Miranda does not prohibit all police questioning, such as “general on-site questions”).
In re the Welfare of M.S.E. 389 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
In re the Welfare of M.S.E. 389 N.W.2d 523 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 380 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Anderson 380 N.W.2d 165 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Berg 383 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Berg 383 N.W.2d 7 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Lee 376 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Lee 376 N.W.2d 259 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Schlemme v. Commissioner of Public Safety 363 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Schlemme v. Commissioner of Public Safety 363 N.W.2d 781 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
State v. Howard 360 N.W.2d 637 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
The State must demonstrate “clearly and unequivocally that the trial court has erred in its judgment and that, unless reversed, the error will have a critical impact on the outcome of the trial.” ().