Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Vievering

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 25, 1986No. C2-85-1802Published

1DissentRandall, Judge

I respectfully dissent. Although the issue of the officer’s right to request a preliminary breath screening test pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 6 (1984) must be considered close, I would defer to the discretion of the trial court and affirm the court’s order suppressing the test. Oral testimony on the issue was taken and our scope of appellate review is necessarily limited when the credibility of witnesses is assessed by the trial court. See State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 194 N.W.2d 276 (1972).

The record is clear that the peace officer limited his reasons for requesting that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. MytychSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  2. Holtz v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1983
  3. Rude v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  4. Sarb v. Commissioner of Public SafetyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API