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 2005–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vernonia School District 47J v. Actongreen2 sentences2014A general reasonableness analysis may be appropriate “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” Id. at 653 , 115 S. Ct. at 2391 (quotation omitted). 2014A general reasonableness analysis may be appropriate “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” Id. at 653 , 115 S. Ct. at 2391 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State of Minnesota v. Derek Lawrence Stavishgreen1 sentence2018Dist. 47J v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646 , 653, 115 S.Ct. 2386 , 2391, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (quotation omitted); see also Stavish , 868 N.W.2d at 675 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
New Jersey v. T. L. O.
green
2 sentences2012The 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). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2018Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 , 338, 351, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 1716, 1723-24, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) ; State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 , 766-68, 772 (Minn. 2015), aff'd sub nom., Birchfield , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 . *114 Furthermore, a warrantless search of a person may be valid under the Fourth Amendment even without probable cause of criminal activity, if there exist "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, [which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Vernonia Sch. 2018Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 , 338, 351, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 1716, 1723-24, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) ; State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 , 766-68, 772 (Minn. 2015), aff'd sub nom., Birchfield , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 . *114 Furthermore, a warrantless search of a person may be valid under the Fourth Amendment even without probable cause of criminal activity, if there exist "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, [which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Vernonia Sch. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
1 sentence2018Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 , 338, 351, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 1716, 1723-24, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) ; State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 , 766-68, 772 (Minn. 2015), aff'd sub nom., Birchfield , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 . *114 Furthermore, a warrantless search of a person may be valid under the Fourth Amendment even without probable cause of criminal activity, if there exist "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, [which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Vernonia Sch. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr.
green
1 sentence2018Arizona v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 , 338, 351, 129 S.Ct. 1710 , 1716, 1723-24, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) ; State v. Bernard, 859 N.W.2d 762 , 766-68, 772 (Minn. 2015), aff'd sub nom., Birchfield , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2160 . *114 Furthermore, a warrantless search of a person may be valid under the Fourth Amendment even without probable cause of criminal activity, if there exist "special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, [which] make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable." Vernonia Sch. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences2012In 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 |
Griffin v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2012In Griffin v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court used the “special needs” exception in upholding a warrantless search of a probationer’s home pursuant to Wisconsin’s search regulation and “reasonable grounds”' to believe that contraband was present. 483 U.S. 868, 875-76 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987). 2012In Griffin v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court used the “special needs” exception in upholding a warrantless search of a probationer’s home pursuant to Wisconsin’s search regulation and “reasonable grounds”' to believe that contraband was present. 483 U.S. 868, 875-76 , 107 S.Ct. 3164 , 97 L.Ed.2d 709 (1987). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
green
1 sentence2005But the Supreme Court has recognized limited exceptions to this rule in “when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.