Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Barsness, 473 N.W.2d 828.

155 citing documents.

Hunter Daniel Hanlon v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (citing Minn. Const. art. I, § 6).
Ryan John Nordell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety held that 8 Article I, section 6 guarantees DWI arrestees a “limited right to counsel within a reasonable time before submitting to testing.”
State of Minnesota v. Zachary Michael McGowan Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Paul Vang Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that individuals have the limited right to a reasonable amount of time in which to attempt to consult with counsel before complying with implied-consent testing or refusing to do so.
Chad William Mosher v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Peter Alan Krech v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (citing Minn. Const. art. I, § 6).
State of Minnesota v. David Ford McMurray 860 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 2015
For example, in Friedman v. Commissioner of Public Safety, this court observed that “Minnesota has a long tradition of assuring the right to counsel.” , 831 (Minn.1991).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Richard Dehn Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Joseph John Wasche, III Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Ronald Earle Menzie Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, (“The right to counsel will be considered vindicated if the person is provided with a telephone prior to testing and given a reasonable time to contact and talk with counsel.
State of Minnesota v. Amanda Sue Thorne Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carmilla J. Thibodeau-Schoeszler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, the supreme court held that “a driver who has been stopped for a possible DWI violation and has been asked to submit to a chemical test is at a ‘critical stage’ in DWI proceedings, thus triggering the right to counsel.” While this appears straightforward, Friedman is an implied-consent case; the
Stephanie Ann Keim v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, d 828, 835 (Minn. 1991).
State of Minnesota v. Ashley Elizabeth Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Jack Eugene Christiansen v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, (applying Minn. Const. art. I, § 6).
Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety 848 N.W.2d 206 Minn. 2014
Safety, Prideaux v. State.
State v. Brooks 838 N.W.2d 563 Minn. 2013
State v. Maddox 825 N.W.2d 140 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Safety, (quoting Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 , 53 S.Ct.
Nelson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 779 N.W.2d 571 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
Morris v. State 765 N.W.2d 78 Minn. 2009
at 97 (citing Friedman v. Comm’r of Public Safety, 836 (Minn.1991)); see also Minn.Stat.
State v. Underdahl 767 N.W.2d 677 Minn. 2009
Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Safety, , 833 (Minn.1991)), review denied (Minn. Oct.
Mell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 757 N.W.2d 702 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
State v. Loeffel 749 N.W.2d 115 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Safety, (allowing a limited right to counsel before a defendant is asked to submit to chemical testing).
State v. Melde 725 N.W.2d 99 Minn. 2006
State v. Schmidt 712 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2006
Schmidt relied on the court of appeals’ which held that a “Colorado driver’s license revocation resulting from an uncounseled blood-alcohol test violates the Minnesota Constitution and cannot be used to enhance Minnesota impaired driving charges.” Bergh was *533 which held that under the Minnesota Constitution, “an individual has the right, upon request, to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.” The district court agreed that Bergh
Deegan v. State 711 N.W.2d 89 Minn. 2006
836 (Minn.1991) (citing Minn. Const. art. I, § ,6 (“The accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.”)).
State v. Myers 711 N.W.2d 113 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Safety, that “under the right-to-counsel clause in *119 article I, section 6 of the Minnesota Constitution, an individual has the right, upon request, to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.” Under Minn.Stat.
State v. Kouba 709 N.W.2d 299 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
Safety, (“Minnesota has a long tradition of assuring the right to counsel.”); (Minn.App.
State v. Schuster 709 N.W.2d 282 Minn. Ct. App. 2006
State v. Skapyak 702 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Skapyak 702 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Kahn v. Griffin 701 N.W.2d 815 Minn. 2005
Hershberger, d at 397-99; Friedman v. Comm’r of Public Safety, Skeen, d at 313-15 .
State v. Schmidt 701 N.W.2d 313 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
State v. Clark 698 N.W.2d 173 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Safety, see also Minn. Const, art. I, § 6 (providing that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right ...
Lewis v. State 697 N.W.2d 624 Minn. Ct. App. 2005
Safety, 835 (Minn.1991).
State v. Barrett 694 N.W.2d 783 Minn. 2005
State v. Bergh 679 N.W.2d 734 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
Maietta v. Commissioner of Public Safety 663 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Jones v. Commissioner of Public Safety 660 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Safety, (interpreting Minn. Const. Art. 1, § 6).
Paone v. State 658 N.W.2d 896 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Collins 655 N.W.2d 652 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
State v. Stoskopf 644 N.W.2d 842 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Mellett 642 N.W.2d 779 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
State v. Webster 642 N.W.2d 488 Minn. Ct. App. 2002
Hartung v. Commissioner of Public Safety 634 N.W.2d 735 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Safety, (holding that right to counsel under implied-consent statute is limited because of the “evanescent nature” of alcohol).
Busch v. Commissioner of Public Safety 614 N.W.2d 256 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Groe v. Commissioner of Public Safety 615 N.W.2d 837 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
State v. Neely 604 N.W.2d 120 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Safety, (unconstitutionality of statute denying motorist right to consult attorney prospectively applied) and McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub.