Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Driscoll, 427 N.W.2d 263.

25 citing documents.

Maryam Yusuf Ahmed v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2026
This can include a driver’s “failure to turn on lights immediately after restarting [their] engine” at night, as well as a driver’s failure “to signal a turn,” Otto, d at 661.
Rusty James Moore v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“E ven observing a motor vehicle weaving within its own lane in an erratic manner can justify an officer stopping a driver.”); (upholding the traffic stop of a vehicle driving slow and “weaving within its lane”); (listing “failure to drive vehicle in a straight line” as a sign of impairment).
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Heather Marie Mangen Minn. Ct. App. 2025
14, 2004); Kier, d at 678; -66 (Minn. App. 1988).
State of Minnesota v. Jasmine Green Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Jasmine Green Minn. Ct. App. 2025
on Saturday morning)); (affirming probable cause where officer noted, among other things, odor of alcohol and failing to follow directions during field sobriety test).
State of Minnesota v. Kelly Jenko Triebwasser Minn. Ct. App. 2024
7 testified that she stopped the vehicle after she “observed [Triebwasser] driving on and over the fog lines,” “weaving,” and turning “without signaling.” “Ordinarily, if an officer observes a violation of a traffic law, however insignificant, the officer has an objective basis for stopping the vehicle.” d 575, 578 (Minn. 1997) ; (stating erratic driving and failure to observe traffic laws can be indicia of intoxication).
Tyler Edward Connell v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2024
State of Minnesota v. Imagine Tera Sade Majors Minn. Ct. App. 2023
14, 2004); (weaving and lights off plus indicia); Giddings v. Comm ’r of Pub.
State of Minnesota v. Tonia Nicole Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2021
See State v. Driscoll , (stating that erratic driving and failing to observe traffic laws can be indicia of intoxication).
State of Minnesota v. Raphael Phares Spencer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
(stating that erratic driving and failing to observe traffic laws can be indicia of intoxication).
State of Minnesota v. Irwin James Sam Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that “the observed symptoms of some type of intoxication, particularly the severely constricted pupils , plus the strong evidence of inattentive driving” were sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence of a controlled substance); (relying in part on driver’s bloodshot and watery eyes when determining that probable cause existed).
State of Minnesota v. Adam Vance Stevenson Minn. Ct. App. 2020
See Olson, d at 700 (defendant’s erratic behavior); , 265 (Minn. App. 1988) (standard physical indicia and driving conduct); Swapinski v. Comm’r of Pub.
Adam Lindsay Williams v. Commissioner of Public Safety (A18-0970), State of Minnesota (A18-1103), vs. Adam Lindsay Williams Minn. Ct. App. 2019
See, (failing to observe traffic laws is indicia of intoxication).
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
Erratic driving and failing to observe traffic laws can be indicia of intoxication, State v. Driscoll , , 265 (Minn. App. 1988), and doing so at a time of day when drinking is often found to be involved can provide an objective basis to investigate DUI.
State of Minnesota v. Sedrick Lamar Holt Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Driscoll , -66 (Minn. App. 1988).
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
State v. Koppi 779 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 2010
See State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 196 , (“[WJhether an officer in the particular circumstances, conditioned by his observations and information, and guided by the whole of his police experience, reasonably could have believed that a crime had been committed by the person to be arrested.”); (“[W]hether probable cause exists hinges on the officer’s objective observations, not *568 on his subjective belief as to probable cause.”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
Reeves v. Commissioner of Public Safety 751 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Reeves v. Commissioner of Public Safety 751 N.W.2d 117 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
While the determination is based on the totality of the circumstances, there is no “mechanical or numerical equation.” (quotation omitted).
Knapp v. Commissioner of Public Safety 594 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
Knapp v. Commissioner of Public Safety 594 N.W.2d 239 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
-66 (Minn.App.1988) (citing Costillo v. Commissioner of Pub.
State v. Vivier 453 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
State v. Vivier 453 N.W.2d 713 Minn. Ct. App. 1990