State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- United States v. LeonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- State of Tennessee v. Corrin Kathleen ReynoldsTennessee Supreme Court · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Cruz-Guzman v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2018
- Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of MinnesotaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2017
- State of Tennessee v. Chad E. HenryCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2017
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.