Legal Opinion
State v. Johnson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 25, 2012No. A09-0247PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Justice.
This case presents the question of whether Minn.Stat. § 609.117, subd. 1(1) (2010), violates the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the Equal Protection Clause in either the U.S. or Minnesota Constitutions. Subdivision 1(1) requires a defendant charged with a felony and then convicted of a misdemean- *3or arising out of the same set of circumstances “to provide a biological specimen” to determine the person’s DNA profile for the limited purpose of criminal identification. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, we conclude that the…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Samson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Rita Ann Stevens v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2014
- In re the Welfare of M.L.M.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
- State v. MedinaSupreme Court of Vermont · 2014
- State v. HollowaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- State of Minnesota v. David Ray BennettCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.