Legal Opinion
In re the Welfare of M.L.M.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 25, 2012No. A09-0875PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DIETZEN, Justice.
This case presents the question of whether Minn.Stat. § 609.117, subd. 1(2) (2010), violates the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the Equal Protection Clause in either the U.S. or Minnesota Constitutions. Subdivision 1(2) requires a juvenile petitioned for a felony and then adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor arising out of the same set of circumstances “to provide a biological specimen” to determine the person’s DNA profile for the limited purpose of criminal identification. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances test, we conclude…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Samson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- State v. M.D.T.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
- Lora Walker v. Hartford Life and Accident InsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- Meriwether Minnesota Land & Timber, LLC v. StateCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2012
- Animal Legal Def. Fund, Iowa Citizens for Cmty. Improvement, Bailing Out Benji, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. ReynoldsDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.