§
Subdivision 1.Consultation.
All officers or persons having in their custody a person restrained of liberty, except in cases where imminent danger of escape or injury exists, shall admit any attorney retained by or on behalf of the person restrained, or whom the restrained person may desire to consult, to a private interview at the place of custody. Such custodians, upon request of the person restrained, as soon as practicable, and before other proceedings shall be had, shall notify the attorney of the request for a consultation with the attorney.
§
Subd. 2.Telephone access in local correctional facilities.
Except as provided in subdivision 3 and except in cases where imminent danger of escape or injury exists, all officers or persons having in their custody a person restrained of liberty whether or not the person restrained has been charged, tried, or convicted, shall provide private telephone access to any attorney retained by or on behalf of the person restrained, or whom the restrained person may desire to consult at no charge to the attorney or to the person restrained. Reasonable telephone access under this subdivision shall be provided following the request of the person restrained and before other proceedings shall be had regarding the alleged offense causing custody.
§
Subd. 3.Telephone access in state correctional facilities.
Except in cases where imminent danger of escape or injury exists, all officers or persons having in their custody a person restrained of liberty while serving an executed sentence in a state correctional facility, shall provide private telephone access to any attorney retained by or on behalf of the person restrained, or whom the restrained person may desire to consult at no charge to the attorney or to the person restrained. Telephone access under this subdivision shall be provided following the request of the person restrained and in accordance with policies adopted by the institution that meet constitutional requirements.
§
Subd. 4.Criminal penalty.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subdivision 1 or 2 is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall also forfeit $100 to the person aggrieved, to be recovered in a civil action.
(b) The penalties described in paragraph (a) do not apply to officers or persons having in their custody persons restrained of liberty while serving an executed sentence in a state correctional facility.
Notes of Decisions
Nyflot v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 369 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. 1985).
· cites it 54× “The Court of Appeals ruled that drivers arrested for DWI have a limited right under Minn.Stat. § 481.10 (1984) to consult with an attorney before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing, notwithstanding a 1984 amendment to section 169.”
Prideaux v. State Dept. of Pub. Saf., 247 N.W.2d 385 (Minn. 1976).
· cites it 16× “The decision in Schabert and the citation of § 481.10 reflect a longstanding Minnesota policy to allow accused persons immediate access to counsel so that those persons would have assistance in securing their rights regarding bail, police interrogation, preparation of a defense,…”
Friedman v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 473 N.W.2d 828 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 32× “Such custodians, upon request of the person restrained, as soon as practicable, and before other proceedings shall be had, shall notify any attorney residing in the county of the request for a consultation with the attorney.”
Gergen v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 548 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 18× “* Driver appeals from an order sustaining revocation of his driving privileges, arguing that (1) he was denied his right to counsel because he could not complete a call to an 800-number from the telephone that was made available to him and (2) the arresting officer violated…”
Kuhn v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 488 N.W.2d 838 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “2d 385 (1976), the supreme court held Minn.Stat. § 481.10 gives a driver arrested for DWI a limited statutory right to consult counsel before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”
Mullins v. Churchill, 616 N.W.2d 764 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 46× “Appellants, who are inmates at state correctional facilities, challenge summary judgment granted to prison officials and employees in consolidated actions in which three of four appellants alleged prison personnel violated Minn.Stat. § 481.10 (1998), *766 which states that…”
State v. Gross, 335 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 1983).
· cites it 2× “2d 385 (1976), we interpreted Minn.Stat. § 481.10 (1982) as giving a person a limited right to consult with counsel before deciding whether to submit to blood alcohol testing under the implied consent law.”
State v. Edwards, 30 P.3d 238 (Haw. 2001).
“276 § 33A; Minn.Stat. § 481.10, Rule 3.1(c)(2) of the Wa.”
State v. Collins, 655 N.W.2d 652 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Collins indicated that she was not going to cooperate with the officers until her “attorney was there.”
Comm'r of Pub. Saf. v. Campbell, 494 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 1992).
· cites it 2× “This issue is whether the police had a‘further obligation to permit the call to be made from a private booth or room.”
Busch v. Comm'r of Pub. Saf., 614 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The court, quoting Minn.Stat. § 481.10 (1982), noted that a request for an attorney must be *259 complied with “as soon as possible.”
State v. Daby, 359 N.W.2d 730 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Complainant checked the box underneath the photograph of appellant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.