Legal Opinion
State v. Shriner
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided October 2, 2007No. A07-181PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MINGE, Judge.
The state challenges the pretrial suppression of the results of a warrantless, nonconsensual blood draw, arguing that the presence of alcohol constitutes sufficient exigent circumstances to justify a blood draw. Because we conclude that under the facts present, there was insufficient evidence of exigent circumstances, we affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Janet Shriner was involved in a two-car motor-vehicle accident on May 8, 2006, at approximately 9:26 p.m. in Burnsville. Shriner drove her vehicle in the wrong lane of traffic and struck another vehicle head-on, injuring the driver…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- State v. Joon Kyu KimSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. ShrinerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. NetlandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007
- State v. ShrinerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. ShrinerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. ShrinerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2007