Minnesota Supreme Court, 1979

Matter of Welfare of Burns

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided June 22, 1979 · Kelly

284 N.W.2d 359; 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1584 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Meagher, Geer, Markham, Anderson, Ad-amson, Flaskamp & Brennan, David B. Or-field and Steven C. Eggimann, Minneapolis, for appellant., Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief Asst. County Atty., Appellate Division, and David W. Larson, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1988, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Hobson (Wis. 1998)
State v. Wiegmann (Md. 1998)
State v. Gardiner (Utah 1991)
Brown v. City of Oklahoma City (Okla. Civ. App. 1986)
Commonwealth v. Moreira (Mass. 1983)
State v. Valentine (Wash. 1997)
State v. Valentine (Wash. 1997)
William C. Wardlaw v. William R. Pickett, Deputy United States Marshal (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Glover v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991)
City of St. Louis Park v. Berg (Minn. 1988)
State v. Wick (Minn. 1983)
State v. Kittleson (Minn. 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*360 KELLY, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Hennepin County District Court, Juvenile Division, determining after a hearing that appellant, a 17-year-old juvenile, assaulted two police officers and interfered with them in the performance of their official duties. Appellant contends that his conduct was justified as being a reasonable response to an illegal search by St. Louis Park Police Officers conducting an investigation of an automobile accident in which he was involved. We hold otherwise and affirm.

The accident rendered appellant’s automobile inoperable. Since the vehicle was blocking a lane of traffic, the police, acting in accordance with department policy, ordered a tow. After letting appellant remove any valuables which he wanted to take with him, the officers approached the vehicle for the purpose of entering it and taking an inventory, pursuant to a St. Louis Park Ordinance (Section 3:136.4). Upon opening the door, the officers smelled the odor of burned marijuana, which prompted them to begin a search for marijuana. At this point appellant protested and, when the officers tried to search him, he resisted.

Appellant’s contention is that the police acted unlawfully in trying to search him and his automobile, and that this justified forcible resistance. We need not reach the issue of the legality of the police conduct in trying to search appellant or his automobile. As we stated in State v. Hoagland, 270 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Minn. 1978), Minnesota law does not recognize a defendant’s right to resist a search which he feels is illegal because “Legal safeguards are available .to our citizens to protect them from unlawful search and seizure.”

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.