State v. Heinonen
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
CHUTICH, Justice.
This case requires us to decide whether police officers violated an arrestee's Fifth Amendment right when, after the arrestee invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, the officers later asked him if he was willing to sign a written consent to the taking of a DNA sample and explained to him, when questioned, why they sought the sample. Appellant Erik Heinonen moved to suppress the DNA results, as well as the incriminating statements that he made when officers were taking the DNA sample. The district court denied the motion.
Following a jury trial, Heinonen was…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Rhode Island v. InnisSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Michigan v. MosleySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- State v. PauldoSupreme Court of Georgia · 2020
- State v. AtwoodSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- State of Minnesota v. Larry Joe FosterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2025