Legal Opinion

State v. Tanksley

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided February 8, 2012No. A10-0392PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STRASS, Justice.

Appellant Herman Tanksley, Ir., was convicted of a single count of fourth-degree driving while impaired (DWI)-driving with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, in violation of Minn.Stat. § 1694.20, subd. 1(5) (2010). Tanksley argues that he was entitled to a Frye-Mack hearing on the reliability of first-void urine testing to resolve his claim that first-void urine testing does not reliably correlate with a driver's blood alcohol concentration. Because blood alcohol concentration is irrelevant when the State seeks to prove the offense of driving with an aleohol…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
  2. People v. KaurishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  4. Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
  5. Goeb v. TharaldsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. PedersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
  2. Staunton v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  3. State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice TaylorCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
  4. Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  5. Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API