Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Scott, 473 N.W.2d 375.

24 citing documents.

State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
State v. Wood 922 N.W.2d 209 Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Safety , , 281 (Minn. 1985), and State v. Scott , , 377 (Minn. App. 1991) ).
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State v. Mike 919 N.W.2d 103 Minn. Ct. App. 2018
377 (Minn. App. 1991) (citations and quotations omitted).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2017
1 (2016) (“If a person refuses to permit a test, then a test must not be given.”); (explaining that police may not compel driver to submit to test after driver refuses test).
State v. Hunn 899 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State v. Hunn 899 N.W.2d 541 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
(citing Tyler, d at 281 ; -77 (Minn. App. 1993); ); (“[W]e have consistently held that compliance with the testing procedures of the implied-consent law is a not a prerequisite for the admissibility of test results in a criminal DWI proceeding.”).
Jason Richard Montonye v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Jason Richard Montonye v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
1; (“The implied consent law states in clear and unambiguous language that an officer shall not 6 give a test if the driver refuses to permit one.”).
Darrick Alan Duncan v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Darrick Alan Duncan v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
2 (2014); (“The purpose of the implied consent advisory is to inform the driver of the serious consequences of his or her refusal.”).
State of Minnesota v. Carmilla J. Thibodeau-Schoeszler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Carmilla J. Thibodeau-Schoeszler Minn. Ct. App. 2014
14, 1995); (suppressing blood test results taken involuntarily from driver who was given implied-consent advisory and refused test, but noting that results could have been used if trooper proceeded without implied-consent advisory).
State v. Akers 636 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Akers 636 N.W.2d 841 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
See, -78 (Minn.App.1991) (police misled defendant and violated due process when informing defendant that negative consequences would occur if he refused to take a sobriety test without also informing him a test would be given with or without his consent).
State v. Lee 577 N.W.2d 730 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
State v. Nielsen 530 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Tyler, d at 281 ; Schauer, d at 676-77
State v. Schauer 501 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Schauer 501 N.W.2d 673 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
This court has reiterated that “[w]hen the implied consent advisory is not given, the results of a blood test may be used in the prosecution of a DWI.” (citing Tyler, d at 281 ).
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Condon 497 N.W.2d 272 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
State v. Aschnewitz 483 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
State v. Aschnewitz 483 N.W.2d 107 Minn. Ct. App. 1992

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by