Legal Opinion

State v. Polsfuss

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided August 8, 2006No. A05-2108, A05-2563PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

WORKE, Judge.

In these consolidated appeals from convictions of DWI, appellants argue that chemical tests should have been suppressed because they were taken under an implied consent law that had been declared unconstitutional in Fedziuk v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 696 N.W.2d 340 (Minn.2005), because it did not provide for prompt judicial review. Appellants also argue that decisions in the accompanying implied-consent proceedings, either rescinding the revocation of or reinstating the driver’s license, should have collateral-estoppel effect in criminal proceedings, or should at least be…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. LothenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  2. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
  3. State v. SorensonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  4. McDonnell v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
  5. State v. RichardsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. NetlandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, MN License No. KFR615, VIN: 1G6KS54Y83U131208Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API