Legal Opinion

State v. Othoudt

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 23, 1991No. CX-90-2145PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RANDALL, Judge.

The trial court was not clearly and unequivocally wrong when it found appellant’s warrantless in-home arrest invalid because the deputy sheriff lacked consent to proceed into respondent’s home and up to his bedroom. We affirm.

FACTS

The law enforcement officer here, a deputy sheriff, was dispatched to the scene of a one vehicle accident. No one was present when he arrived. He deduced that a pickup truck had crossed a lane of traffic, run off the road and hit a tree. There was damage to the front end of the truck and the windshield. There was also spattered blood inside the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Coolidge v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  5. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. HaydenSupreme Court of the United States · 1967

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. OthoudtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  2. State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  3. State of Minnesota v. Jose Martin Lugo, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API