State v. Tanksley
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- People v. KaurishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. MacKSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Frieler v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- Goeb v. TharaldsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2000
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. PedersonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2013
- Staunton v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- State of Minnesota v. Larry Maurice TaylorCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Thomas Daniel Rhodes v. State of Minnesota, A13-560Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2016