State v. Shriner
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentMeyer, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The majority today has created a new rule of law that erodes the right of citizens in Minnesota to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. I would proceed with a more cautious approach, apply our long-standing rule of law that a search and seizure conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable, and hold that when a police officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed criminal vehicular operation, a blood sample may be taken without the suspect’s consent if the officer has a…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Preston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.