DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

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

24 citing documents.

  • Jesse M. Gregorich, Appellant, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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, Respondent, 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.” ().