Legal Opinion
State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark Thompson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided October 12, 2016No. A15-76PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILDEA, Chief Justice.
The question presented in this case is whether MinmStat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2014) (“test refusal statute”), is constitutional as applied to respondent Ryan Mark Thompson. After Thompson was arrested on suspicion of driving while impaired and refused warrantless blood and urine tests, he was charged with and convicted of test refusal. Thompson moved to dismiss the test refusal charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional, but the district court denied his motion. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed. State v. Thompson, 873 N.W.2d 873, 880…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Albright v. OliverSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- County of Sacramento v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Commonwealth v. EnnelsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
- State v. HelmNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
- State v. Hi Ta LarSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2018
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Tyler Lee Johnson v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2016
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.