Legal Opinion
Johnson v. State
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 15, 2004No. C8-02-790PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MEYER, Justice.
We are presented with the issue of whether DNA evidence seized pursuant to a court order under a sentencing statute— an order later determined to have misconstrued the meaning of the statute — must be suppressed by virtue of the exclusionary rule. The court of appeals held that the evidence must be suppressed. We reverse.
On September 21, 1992, 17-year-old N.B. was sexually assaulted at knifepoint. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) placed in its database a DNA profile from a vaginal swab it took from the victim. At that time, authorities were unable to link a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1966
- Gates v. StateSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
- State v. GausterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2008
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
- State of Minnesota v. Mahdi Hassan AliSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2014
- State of Minnesota, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Bonnie Ann Lindquist, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.