Legal Opinion

State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided August 19, 2015No. A12-599PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

The question presented by this case is whether the good-faith, exception to the exclusionary rule articulated in Davis v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011), should apply in Minnesota. Appellant/cross-respondent Bonnie Ann Lindquist was convicted of third-degree driving while impaired (DWI). At trial, the district court admitted test results showing Lindquist’s alcohol concentration that were based on a warrantless blood draw. While Lind-quist’s case was on direct appeal, the Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct.…

2Cases cited67 opinions

  1. Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  5. Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State of Tennessee v. Corrin Kathleen ReynoldsTennessee Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
  3. Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
  4. Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
  5. State of Tennessee v. Chad E. HenryCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2017

25 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