13 Minnesota opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State, Department of Public Safety v. Juncewskigreen2 sentences2015Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn. 1981); see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.41, subd. 1 (2014) (stating that a preliminary screening test may be given when an “officer has reason to believe” that a person is driving while impaired); State v. Vievering, 383 N.W.2d 729, 730 (Minn. App. 1986) (noting that administering a preliminary breath test does not require probable cause), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1986). 1984In State Department of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316 (Minn.1981), the Supreme Court held that based upon his power to conduct a citizen’s arrest, an officer outside his jurisdiction could legally administer a preliminary screening test. | 3 | 5 |
State, Department of Public Safety v. Grovumgreen2 sentences1985Minn.Stat. § 169.123, subd. 2(a) (1982); State v. Grovum, 297 Minn. 66 , 209 N.W.2d 788 (1973). 1975The test may also be administered when the officer has reason to believe that a person was driving or operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 169.121 or an ordinance in conformity therewith and the person has either refused to take the preliminary screening test provided for by section 169.121, subdivision 1, or such preliminary screening test was administered and recorded a blood alcohol level of .10 percent or more by weight of alcohol.” (Italics supplied.) In State, Department of Public Safety, v. Grovum, 297 Minn. 66, 71 , 209' N. W. 2d 788, 791 (1973), we pointed out that this s | 1 | 3 |
Windschitl v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen2 sentences1987Windschitl v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 355 N.W.2d 146, 149 (Minn.1984). 1985Id. at 148-149 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hjelmstadgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Hjelmstad, 535 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding that the difference between the informant’s equivocal statement that the driver was “possibly drunk” versus a more definite statement of “drunk” was a distinction of “little significance”). 6 using a device approved by the commissioner [of public safety] for this purpose. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vieveringgreen1 sentence2015Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn. 1981); see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.41, subd. 1 (2014) (stating that a preliminary screening test may be given when an “officer has reason to believe” that a person is driving while impaired); State v. Vievering, 383 N.W.2d 729, 730 (Minn. App. 1986) (noting that administering a preliminary breath test does not require probable cause), review denied (Minn. May 16, 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen2 sentences1987We note that in Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907, 911 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), we affirmed the trial court determination that the officer had probable cause to believe the driver had been driving while under the influence, where the officer observed the driver’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, his breath had an odor of an alcoholic beverage, and he failed the preliminary screening test. 1987We note that in Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907, 911 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), we affirmed the trial court determination that the officer had probable cause to believe the driver had been driving while under the influence, where the officer observed the driver’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, his breath had an odor of an alcoholic beverage, and he failed the preliminary screening test. | 1 | 1 |
Ahrens v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence1987See Ahrens v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 396 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (Commissioner does not have an affirmative burden to produce records or logs of Intoxilyzer.) We remand for a probable cause determination by the trial court, based on the preliminary screening test result as well as the officer’s observations of indicia of in *611 toxication. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Minnesota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sipe v. STS Manufacturing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014In Sipe , an employee who was discharged based on a positive drug-test result brought suit against his joint employers three years after -being discharged, alleging that the employers violated Minn. Stat. § 181.953 , subd. 10. 834 N.W.2d at 685 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rude v. Commissioner of Public Safety
green
1 sentence1984The appellant therefore claims that Officer Moore could have had only an “articulable suspicion” that he had been driving while under the influence of alcohol, justifying the administration of a preliminary screening test, rather than a blood test which requires probable cause. {See State, Dep 't of Public Safety v. Juncewski, 308 N.W.2d 316, 321 (Minn.1981), which adopted the “articulable suspicion” standard for administration of a preliminary screening test.) The appellant’s argument has already been addressed by this court in Rude v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 347 N.W.2d 77 (Minn.Ct.App | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Prideaux v. State Dept. of Public Safety
green
2 sentences1976Recently, in Prideaux v. State, Department of Public Safety, 310 Minn. 405 , 247 N. W. 2d 385 (1976), we held that when police arrest a driver for allegedly violating Minn. St. 169.121, then under Minn. St. 481.10 they must accede to any timely request by the driver for permission to telephone his attorney before deciding whether to submit to testing. 1976Recently, in Prideaux v. State, Department of Public Safety, 310 Minn. 405 , 247 N. W. 2d 385 (1976), we held that when police arrest a driver for allegedly violating Minn. St. 169.121, then under Minn. St. 481.10 they must accede to any timely request by the driver for permission to telephone his attorney before deciding whether to submit to testing. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.
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.