State v. Underdahl
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction of gross misdemeanor driving under the influence, arguing that his statement in response to a corrections officer’s question should have been suppressed because the officer did not give appellant a Miranda warning. Because we conclude that a Miranda warning was not required, we affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Glen Underdahl', an inmate in a correctional facility, left the facility on a pass to care for livestock on his parents’ farm. He returned, driving a three-wheeler, late, intoxicated, and disheveled. When the corrections officer on duty saw…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Minnesota v. MurphySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Leonard David GriffinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Billy Lee JorgensenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- State v. TibiatowskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. WernerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007