Minnesota Supreme Court, 1980

State v. Armstrong

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 3, 1980 · Sheran

291 N.W.2d 918; 1980 Minn. LEXIS 1374 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, R. T. Rodenberg, County Atty., Clark A. Tuttle, III, Asst. County Atty., New Ulm, for appellant., C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Robert Goodell, Asst. Public Defender, 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 1987, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Joon Kyu Kim (Minn. 1987)
State v. Schinzing (Minn. 1983)
State v. Veigel (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

SHERAN, Chief Justice.

This is a pretrial appeal by the state, pursuant to R. 29.03, subd. 1, R.Crim.P., from an order of the district court suppressing evidence in a criminal prosecution. The issue raised by the state is whether the district court erred in concluding that the police violated defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights in obtaining the evidence in question. We remand for rehearing.

The district court concluded that defendant’s custodial arrest for the petty misde *919 meanor of possessing a small amount of marijuana was illegal and that under State v. Martin, 253 N.W.2d 404 (Minn. 1977), the arresting officer could not justify his search of the defendant’s car as being incident to a lawful arrest. Our examination of the record suggests that the district court may have been correct in its conclusion but that the search of the car was justified by the motor vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Johnson, 277 N.W.2d 346 (Minn. 1979); State v. Schultz, 271 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 1978); City of St. Paul v. Moody, 309 Minn. 104, 244 N.W.2d 43 (1976); State v. Wicklund, 295 Minn. 403, 205 N.W.2d 509 (1973). However, the prosecutor, while relying on this theory on appeal, apparently did not clearly present this alternative to the district court. Accordingly, we remand for rehearing, at which the district court will be given the opportunity to rule on this issue.

Remanded for rehearing.

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