Legal Opinion

State v. Victorsen

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided April 18, 2001No. C7-00-1795PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

AMUNDSON, Judge

The appellant, in a DWI prosecution, moved the court to apply collateral estop-pel because the court, in an earlier hearing on the related implied consent matter, found the stop not supported by articula-ble suspicion. The DWI court denied the motion, and ruled that the stop was proper and supported by articulable suspicion. The DWI court also ruled that the failure of police to videotape the stop did not require suppression but entitled the driver to an adverse-inference instruction. The DWI court certified questions to this court on the effect of the prior implied…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Frost-Benco Electric Ass'n v. Minnesota Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1962

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. LemmerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
  2. Schumacher v. HalversonDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2006
  3. Doe v. Lutheran High School of Greater MinneapolisCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2005
  4. State v. WagnerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  5. State v. LemmerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2006

7 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