Legal Opinion
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 11, 2015No. A13-1245PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GILDEA, Chief Justice.
Minnesota law makes it a crime for a driver to refuse a request to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol if certain conditions are met, including that the driver has been validly arrested for driving while impaired. Minn.Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (2014). The question presented in this case is whether Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, subd. 2 (“test refusal statute”), violates appellant William Robert Bernard’s right to due process under the United States or Minnesota Constitutions by criminalizing his refusal to consent to an unconstitutional search. The…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Weeks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert BernardSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- State v. RyceSupreme Court of Kansas · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Ryan Mark ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- State of Minnesota v. Joshua Lee MyhreSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2016
- Beylund v. LeviNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2017
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.