Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Shriner

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 30, 2008No. A07-181Published

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

  1. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Preston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API