Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Minnesota courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Florida v. Jardinesgreen2 sentences2016In Jardines , the concurring opinion’s privacy analysis relied on Kyllo to conclude that using a trained drug-detection dog, which is “not in general public use,” to discern the presence of drugs within a home “violates our ‘minimal expectation of privacy’ — an expectation ‘that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable.’ ” 133 S.Ct. at 1419 (Kagan, J., concurring) (quoting Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 , 121 S.Ct. at 2043 ). 2016In Jardines, the concurring opinion’s privacy analysis relied on Kyllo to conclude that using a trained drug-detection dog, which is “not in general public use,” to discern the presence of drugs within a home “violates our ‘minimal expectation of privacy’—an expectation ‘that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable.’” 133 S. Ct. at 1419 (Kagan, J., concurring) (quoting Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34 , 121 S. Ct. at 2043 ). | 1 | 1 |
State of Minnesota v. Stuart Donald Luhmgreen2 sentences2016Luhm, 880 N.W.2d at 616 (noting that appellant relies on majority opinion in Jardines and “does not advance the theory on which the Jardines concurrence is based”); see also id. at 616 n.2 (stating it is unnecessary to analyze Kyllo). 2016Luhm, 880 N.W.2d at 616 (noting that appellant relies on majority opinion in Jardines and “does not advance the theory on which the Jardines concurrence is based”); see also id. at 616 n.2 (stating it is unnecessary to analyze Kyllo). | 1 | 1 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernardgreen1 sentence2016We recognize that Justice Alito’s opinion in Birchfield v. North Dakota states that Riley, which had addressed a search for digital data as opposed to tangible objects, suggested that a privacy analysis applies to situations that “could not have been envisioned when the Fourth Amendment was adopted.” 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2176 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State, Department of Public Safety v. Held
green
2 sentences1992Such a rule fully satisfies the privacy requirement of Minn.Stat. § 481.-10, the provision on which the Prideaux decision was based. 311 Minn. at 76 , 246 N.W.2d at 864 . 1992Such a rule fully satisfies the privacy requirement of Minn.Stat. § 481.-10, the provision on which the Prideaux decision was based. 311 Minn. at 76 , 246 N.W.2d at 864 . | 2 | 1984–1992 |
Kyllo v. United States
green
2 sentences2016The only divergence between the property and privacy analysis is that Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 , 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), controls the privacy analysis. 2016The only divergence between the property and privacy analysis is that Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 , 121 S.Ct. 2038 , 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), controls the privacy analysis. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.