Legal Opinion
State v. Slette
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 6, 1998No. C3-98-416PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge.
Appellant argues that the results of his blood alcohol test should have been suppressed. Because officers violated appellant’s right to counsel by failing to provide appellant with a telephone to contact an attorney or to clarify appellant’s request, we reverse and remand.
FACTS
Randy Allen Slette appeals his conviction for driving while under the influence (DWI). He pleaded guilty based on the following stipulated facts, preserving the suppression issue for appeal. 1
On June 4, 1997, after a three-car motor vehicle accident, police arrested appellant on suspicion of DWI…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- State v. LothenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- Friedman v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
- Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Busch v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- State of Minnesota v. Chad Thomas KarnowskiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017