Legal Opinion
State v. Shriner
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 30, 2008No. A07-181PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Justice.
Appellant State of Minnesota challenges a district court order granting the motion of respondent Janet Sue Shriner (Shriner) to suppress evidence of a warrantless blood draw obtained after she caused a car accident. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that in order for a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw to meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, there must be probable cause and exigent circumstances as demonstrated by an officer’s evaluation of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Shriner, 739 N.W.2d 432, 440 (Minn.App.2007). The issue on this…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Brigham City v. StuartSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- Welsh v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Missouri v. McNeelySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- State v. MeeksTennessee Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- State of Tennessee v. Corrin Kathleen ReynoldsTennessee Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. NetlandSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2009
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.