C5-99-1027 Precedential Processed

State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed October 12, 2000 · 617 N.W.2d 789

Also decided on this docket: Minn. Ct. App., March 28, 2000 605 N.W.2d 405

Cited by

State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jhonathan Jontae Robinson Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Devondre Demont Pike Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Jerrod Malachy Feist, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2021
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Davis Schultz Minn. Ct. App. 2017

all 30 citing documents »

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State v. Johnson 314 N.W.2d 229
State v. Schinzing 342 N.W.2d 105
Piotrowski v. Commissioner of Public Safety 453 N.W.2d 689
State Ex Rel. Rasmussen v. Tahash 141 N.W.2d 3
State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski 308 N.W.2d 316
Sorenson v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center 457 N.W.2d 188
Johnson v. State, Department of Public Safety 351 N.W.2d 2
State v. Carlson 267 N.W.2d 170
State v. Moorman 505 N.W.2d 593
Smith v. Hubbard 91 N.W.2d 756
Costillo v. Commissioner of Public Safety 416 N.W.2d 730
State v. Lee 585 N.W.2d 378
State v. Filipi 297 N.W.2d 275
State v. Fish 159 N.W.2d 786
State v. Scott 584 N.W.2d 412
State v. Riley 568 N.W.2d 518
State, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District v. Horner 605 N.W.2d 405
State v. Camp 590 N.W.2d 115

Opinion text

STRINGER, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority that the trial court erred in concluding that the deputies did not have probable cause to arrest Horner for boating while intoxicated. The majority supports its conclusion stating, “the district court’s findings do not clearly support its conclusion that no probable cause existed.” What could be more clear than the trial court’s conclusion that the only three bases for probable cause were readily explainable by circumstances unrelated to intoxication? Regardless of whether the trial court did or did not credit the deputies’ testimony, its concern for lack of indicia of intoxication is clearly stated and we accord wide deference to its conclusions. See State v. Camp, 590 N.W.2d 115, 118 (Minn. 1999) (stating that trial court’s finding of probable cause to arrest not reversible unless clearly erroneous). The majority does not identify other indicia of intoxication and, on the basis of this record, I cannot agree with the majority in substituting its judgment for the trial court’s considered review of the facts. The trial court’s conclusion as to lack of probable cause was not clearly erroneous.