Legal Opinion · Dissent

State, City of St. Paul v. Lynch

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided November 26, 1991No. C2-91-819Published

1DissentLommen, Judge

I respectfully dissent on the grounds that Lynch was not in custody when interrogated and, therefore, a Miranda warning was not required.

This encounter began when Lynch was stopped for running a stop sign. The only unusual feature was the emergence of Lynch’s passenger, screaming that Lynch *747would not let her out of his car. Prior to the stop, the police had no grounds to charge Lynch with engaging in prostitution.

There were two police officers present. One of them did a pat-down search of Lynch and the passenger, put the passenger in his squad car, and went to check Lynch’s car for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. State v. HeremSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
  4. State v. MoffattSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  5. State v. ClepperCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API