special needs test in Minnesota

5 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2012 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Polston v. Stategreen ark · 2005 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test). 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test).	1	1
Gaines v. Stategreen nev · 2000 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test).	1	1
State v. O'HAGENgreen nj · 2007 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test). 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test).	1	1
Doles v. Stategreen wyo · 1999 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test).	1	1
United States v. George C. Hookgreen ca7 · 2006 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See United States v. Amerson, 483 F.3d 73, 78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 646 , 169 L.Ed.2d 515 (2007); United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 773 (7th Cir.2006), *17 cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2081 , 167 L.Ed.2d 771 (2007).	1	1
United States v. Karen H. Amerson, United States of America v. Julius Gravesgreen ca2 · 2007 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See United States v. Amerson, 483 F.3d 73, 78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 646 , 169 L.Ed.2d 515 (2007); United States v. Hook, 471 F.3d 766, 773 (7th Cir.2006), *17 cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2081 , 167 L.Ed.2d 771 (2007).	1	1
State v. Scarboroughgreen tenn · 2006 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test).	1	1
Nicholas v. Goordgreen ca2 · 2005 · cited in 1 Minnesota opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007These courts generally uphold the DNA indexing statutes as constitutional under the special needs rule because “the state’s purpose in conducting DNA indexing is distinct from the ordinary ‘crime detection’ activities associated with normal law-enforcement concerns,” and thus the suspicionless search survives Fourth Amendment scrutiny. *151 Nicholas v. Goord, 430 F.3d 652, 669 (2d Cir.2005).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Griffin v. Wisconsin green scotus · 1987 2 sentences 2012The district court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, calling the decision “a very close case.” The district court applied two distinct tests to its analysis of whether the agents conducted a valid search: the special-needs test under Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), and the-totality-of-the-cireumstanees test under State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.2007) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001)). 2012The district court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, calling the decision “a very close case.” The district court applied two distinct tests to its analysis of whether the agents conducted a valid search: the special-needs test under Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), and the-totality-of-the-cireumstanees test under State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.2007) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001)).	2	2012–2012
United States v. Knights green scotus · 2001 2 sentences 2012The district court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, calling the decision “a very close case.” The district court applied two distinct tests to its analysis of whether the agents conducted a valid search: the special-needs test under Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), and the-totality-of-the-cireumstanees test under State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.2007) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001)). 2012The district court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, calling the decision “a very close case.” The district court applied two distinct tests to its analysis of whether the agents conducted a valid search: the special-needs test under Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), and the-totality-of-the-cireumstanees test under State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.2007) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001)).	1	2012–2012
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2012In Camara , the Supreme Court found that code enforcement housing inspections would satisfy constitutional concerns “if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling.” 387 U.S. at 538 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 . 2012In Camara , the Supreme Court found that code enforcement housing inspections would satisfy constitutional concerns “if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to a particular dwelling.” 387 U.S. at 538 , 87 S.Ct. 1727 .	1	2012–2012
State v. Anderson green minn · 2007 1 sentence 2012The district court denied appellant’s motion to suppress, calling the decision “a very close case.” The district court applied two distinct tests to its analysis of whether the agents conducted a valid search: the special-needs test under Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987), and the-totality-of-the-cireumstanees test under State v. Anderson, 733 N.W.2d 128 (Minn.2007) (citing United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 , 122 S.Ct. 587 , 151 L.Ed.2d 497 (2001)).	1	2012–2012
New Jersey v. T. L. O. green scotus · 1985 2 sentences 2012The special needs exception applies “in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325, 351 , 105 S.Ct. 733 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring). 2012The special needs exception applies “in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325, 351 , 105 S.Ct. 733 , 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concurring).	1	2012–2012
State v. Martin green vt · 2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test). 2008See, e.g., Polston v. State, 360 Ark. 317 , 201 S.W.3d 406, 410 (2005) (balancing test); Gaines v. State, 116 Nev. 359 , 998 P.2d 166, 172 (2000) (balancing test); State v. O’Hagen, 189 N.J. 140 , 914 A.2d 267, 277 (2007) (special needs test); State v. Scarborough, 201 S.W.3d 607, 618 (Tenn.2006) (balancing test); State v. Martin, 2008 VT 53 , 955 A.2d 1144 , 2008 WL 1914658 (2008) (special needs test); Doles v. State, 994 P.2d 315, 319 (Wyo.1999) (balancing test).	1	2008–2008
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. green scotus · 1989 2 sentences 2005The special-needs doctrine requires the court “to balance the governmental and privacy interests to assess the practicality of the warrant and probable-cause requirements in the particular context.” Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619 , 109 S.Ct. 1402 . 2005The special-needs doctrine requires the court “to balance the governmental and privacy interests to assess the practicality of the warrant and probable-cause requirements in the particular context.” Skinner, 489 U.S. at 619 , 109 S.Ct. 1402 .	1	2005–2005

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MN § Minn. Stat. § 609.117 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

IL 29 (1992–2015) TX 28 (2014–2021) NJ 21 (1997–2020) WA 17 (2002–2019) IA 16 (2010–2024) KS 7 (2003–2019) TN 7 (1991–2020) OH 6 (2003–2025) CA 5 (2002–2021) NY 5 (1996–2015) MN 5 (2005–2012) IN 4 (2000–2012) VT 4 (2008–2014) MD 4 (2004–2021) MA 4 (2003–2023) GA 4 (2002–2019) WI 3 (2017–2021) ME 3 (2007–2020) MS 2 (1998–2000) ID 2 (2010–2025) NV 2 (2015–2015) CT 2 (2002–2021) NM 2 (2006–2010) AZ 2 (2004–2008) KY 2 (2010–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check