Legal Opinion
State v. Scott
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided August 6, 1991No. C9-90-838PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
The trial court suppressed the results of a nonconsensual blood test taken after the implied consent advisory had been given. We affirm.
FACTS
The parties stipulated to the following facts for the purpose of respondent Candy Michelle Scott’s motion to suppress evidence:
1) On January 10,1990, at approximately 11:25 p.m., Officer Nielsen of the Moorhead Police Department investigated a two-vehicle accident.
2) Candy Michelle Scott was the driver of one of the vehicles. Ms. Scott’s car had struck a car which was parked and unoccupied.
3) Officer Nielsen observed indicia of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Raley v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- State v. WebberSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Nyflot v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. CondonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. SchauerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- State v. AschnewitzCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1992
- State v. NielsenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- State v. MikeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.