Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Sanders

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 17, 2009No. A06-1354Published

1DissentPage, Justice

I respectfully dissent. In State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587, 592 (Minn.1994), we held that “all custodial interrogation ... shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded when questioning occurs at a place of detention.” We further held, under our “supervisory power to insure the fair administration of justice,” that courts must suppress any statement “obtained in violation of the recording requirement if the violation is deemed ‘substantial.’ ” Id. Our purpose in so holding “was to prevent factual disputes about the existence and context of Miranda warnings and any…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Stephan v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1985
  3. State v. ScalesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1994
  4. State v. JuarezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  5. State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988

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

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

Powered by the Exa API