Legal Opinion
State v. Hunn
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 16, 2018No. A16-2001PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LILLEHAUG, Justice.
*817Appellant Scott Ross Hunn was stopped and arrested for driving while impaired (DWI). At the jail, the sheriff's deputy, without reading the implied-consent advisory, asked him if he would consent to urine testing. Hunn provided a urine sample, which tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Hunn was charged with second-degree DWI for violating Minnesota Statutes § 169A.20. subd. 1(7) (2016). On Hunn's motion, the district court suppressed the urine test results because the deputy failed to read the implied-consent advisory that would have advised Hunn of his…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Friedman v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- In Re GlaxoSmithKline PlcSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Carlton v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ries v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Bilbro v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- State v. MikeCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2018
- State v. RosenbushSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2019
- State v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.