As most have heard, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of Missouri v. McNeely on April 17, 2013. As expected, the Court rejected the State of Missouri’s request for a per se rule of exigency in all cases of suspected driving under the influence, which would have allowed officers to obtain blood tests from suspected intoxicated drivers without a warrant. The Court confirmed that the exigency of such a...
On January 9, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Missouri v. McNeely, a case in which a police officer ordered blood to be drawn from an individual suspected of drunk driving. The officer ordered the blood draw without a warrant after McNeely refused a breath test. The issue before the United States Supreme Court is whether the nature of blood alcohol evidence, specifically the inevitable but gradual destruction of...
When evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, the exclusionary rule has traditionally barred from trial both physical and verbal evidence stemming from the violation, including confessions that result from an illegal arrest. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485 (1963). However, courts also recognize that individuals may decide to confess as an act of free will, unaffected by any initial...
As noted previously, the Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. Amend. IV. Ordinarily, evidence obtained in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights cannot be used in a criminal case against that individual. See United States v. Riesselman, 646 F.3d 1072, 1078 (8th Cir. 2011). However, there are some...
As part of the constitutional right to present a complete defense, Minnesota courts have held that criminal defendants should in certain circumstances be permitted to present evidence suggesting that the crime charged was committed by an alternative perpetrator. State v. Larson, 787 N.W.2d 592, 597 (Minn. 2010). In order to present any evidence of an alternative perpetrator theory, the defendant must lay foundation by introducing evidence...
In order to constitute reversible error, the admission of evidence must be an abuse of the trial court’s discretion and must affect a substantial right of a party. See Minnesota Rule of Evidence 103(a). The latter part of this analysis, the harmless error rule, is often relied upon by an appellate court to avoid reversal of a lower court’s ruling. To determine whether a constitutional error regarding the admission of...