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.
6 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Krause v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1987Sjodin, 401 N.W.2d at 424-25 ; Krause v. Commissioner of Public Safety, *783 358 N.W.2d 481, 483-84 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence1978See, State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and Filmon v. State, 336 So.2d 586 (Fla.1976). [4] We emphasize that a formal arrest should be effected whenever the suspect appears capable of understanding and communicating with the arresting officer. [5] See, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 920 . [1] Not only does the majority stop short of expressly retaining the arrest requirement for more lucid suspects, footnote 4, supra, but it introduces a distinction which is practically difficult and theoretically unprincipled. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dionisiogreen2 sentences1978Mr. Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, noted the "very limited intrusion" undertaken incident to the station house detention and emphasized the limited breadth of the decision: "[W]e do not hold that a full Chimel [ v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest)] search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant." 412 U.S. 296 , 93 S.Ct. 2004 , 36 L.Ed.2d 906 . *75 That the arrest requirement of Schmerber -type intrusions was u 1978Mr. Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, noted the "very limited intrusion" undertaken incident to the station house detention and emphasized the limited breadth of the decision: "[W]e do not hold that a full Chimel [ v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest)] search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant." 412 U.S. 296 , 93 S.Ct. 2004 , 36 L.Ed.2d 906 . *75 That the arrest requirement of Schmerber -type intrusions was u | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2026There, the United States Supreme Court rejected a per se rule that a Miranda warning will always purge the taint of a defendant’s arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, thereby rendering a defendant’s statements made after the arrest admissible. 422 U.S. 590 , 602-03 (1975). 2026There, the United States Supreme Court rejected a per se rule that a Miranda warning will always purge the taint of a defendant’s arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, thereby rendering a defendant’s statements made after the arrest admissible. 422 U.S. 590 , 602-03 (1975). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
United States v. Robinson
red
2 sentences2006United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 , 94 S.Ct. 467, 477 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). 2006United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 , 94 S.Ct. 467, 477 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sjodin v. Commissioner of Public Safety
neutral
1 sentence1987Sjodin, 401 N.W.2d at 424-25 ; Krause v. Commissioner of Public Safety, *783 358 N.W.2d 481, 483-84 (Minn.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1984For implied consent testing based on conditions other than arrest appellant’s argument conflicts with the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38 , 202 N.W.2d 878 (1972). 1984For implied consent testing based on conditions other than arrest appellant’s argument conflicts with the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Harris, 295 Minn. 38 , 202 N.W.2d 878 (1972). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Filmon v. State
green
1 sentence1978See, State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and Filmon v. State, 336 So.2d 586 (Fla.1976). [4] We emphasize that a formal arrest should be effected whenever the suspect appears capable of understanding and communicating with the arresting officer. [5] See, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 920 . [1] Not only does the majority stop short of expressly retaining the arrest requirement for more lucid suspects, footnote 4, supra, but it introduces a distinction which is practically difficult and theoretically unprincipled. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Davis v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1978Mr. Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, noted the "very limited intrusion" undertaken incident to the station house detention and emphasized the limited breadth of the decision: "[W]e do not hold that a full Chimel [ v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest)] search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant." 412 U.S. 296 , 93 S.Ct. 2004 , 36 L.Ed.2d 906 . *75 That the arrest requirement of Schmerber -type intrusions was u 1978Mr. Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, noted the "very limited intrusion" undertaken incident to the station house detention and emphasized the limited breadth of the decision: "[W]e do not hold that a full Chimel [ v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest)] search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant." 412 U.S. 296 , 93 S.Ct. 2004 , 36 L.Ed.2d 906 . *75 That the arrest requirement of Schmerber -type intrusions was u | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences1978Mr. Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, noted the "very limited intrusion" undertaken incident to the station house detention and emphasized the limited breadth of the decision: "[W]e do not hold that a full Chimel [ v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest)] search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant." 412 U.S. 296 , 93 S.Ct. 2004 , 36 L.Ed.2d 906 . *75 That the arrest requirement of Schmerber -type intrusions was u 1978Mr. Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, noted the "very limited intrusion" undertaken incident to the station house detention and emphasized the limited breadth of the decision: "[W]e do not hold that a full Chimel [ v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest)] search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant." 412 U.S. 296 , 93 S.Ct. 2004 , 36 L.Ed.2d 906 . *75 That the arrest requirement of Schmerber -type intrusions was u | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1978See, State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and Filmon v. State, 336 So.2d 586 (Fla.1976). [4] We emphasize that a formal arrest should be effected whenever the suspect appears capable of understanding and communicating with the arresting officer. [5] See, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 920 . [1] Not only does the majority stop short of expressly retaining the arrest requirement for more lucid suspects, footnote 4, supra, but it introduces a distinction which is practically difficult and theoretically unprincipled. 1978See, State v. Mitchell, 245 So.2d 618 (Fla.1971), and Filmon v. State, 336 So.2d 586 (Fla.1976). [4] We emphasize that a formal arrest should be effected whenever the suspect appears capable of understanding and communicating with the arresting officer. [5] See, Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 , 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1836 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908, 920 . [1] Not only does the majority stop short of expressly retaining the arrest requirement for more lucid suspects, footnote 4, supra, but it introduces a distinction which is practically difficult and theoretically unprincipled. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.