Legal Opinion
State v. Colosimo
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided September 25, 2003No. C7-01-2181PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILBERT, Justice.
Respondent John M. Colosimo was convicted for refusal to allow inspection of a boat, MinmStat. § 97A.251, subd. 1(3) (2000). Colosimo challenged his conviction arguing he was unlawfully stopped by the conservation officer, the officer did not have probable cause to inspect the boat and the request to inspect the boat was an unlawful seizure. The court of appeals reversed the conviction concluding that the conservation officer was required to have probable cause to request inspection of Colosimo’s boat and that because the officer did not have probable cause to request…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Delaware v. ProuseSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Bond v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- In Re the Welfare of E.D.J.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. SorensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
- Ascher v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- People v. MaikhioCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Westrom v. Minnesota Department of Labor & IndustrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2004
- Save Mille Lacs Sportsfishing, Inc. v. Minnesota Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Mertins v. Commissioner of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2008
- Pickle v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2015
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.