Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Atwood

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 13, 2019No. A17-1463Published

1Dissent

GILDEA, Chief Justice (dissenting).

Minnesotans will be surprised to learn that blood samples and other biological specimens they provide to their doctors during medical treatment are not protected by the physician-patient privilege, and that such samples and specimens can be given to police without their consent. But that is the conclusion the majority reaches in this case. Specifically, the majority holds that a blood sample taken from appellant Atwood while he was a patient receiving emergency medical treatment is not "information" and therefore is not protected by the physician-patient…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  2. State Ex Rel. Foster v. NaftalinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  3. State v. StaatSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1971
  4. Schuette v. City of HutchinsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
  5. Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018

5 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