Minnesota Supreme Court, 1983

Miller v. State

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 21, 1983 · Kelley

329 N.W.2d 54; 1983 Minn. LEXIS 1199 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, and Kathy King, Asst. Public Defender, Allan Ca-plan, Asst. County Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant., Hubert H. Humphrey III, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Thomas L. Johnson, County Atty., Vernon E. Bergstrom, Chief, Appellate Div., Michael McGlennen, Thomas A. Weist, and Anne E. Peek, Asst. County Attys., 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 1985, 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

1 later published case cites this decision.

State v. Howard (Minn. 1985)

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

KELLEY, Justice.

In State v. Miller, 316 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 1982), we were asked by defendant to decide several important issues concerning the scope and application of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), which held that, absent exigent circumstances or consent, police without an arrest warrant may not cross the threshold and enter a suspect’s residence to arrest him. We avoided the issues because it appeared that defendant’s confession, which defendant argued was the fruit of a Payton violation, was in fact not the fruit of the illegality, if there was any, in the manner of arresting defendant but was the fruit of an earlier clearly-valid, warranted search. We therefore remanded the case for a post-conviction hearing to determine this issue. That hearing was held and the district court issued findings favorable to the state. We affirm those findings and affirm the district court’s conclusion that the confession was not obtained by exploitation of any illegality in the manner in which defendant was arrested. See, e.g., Taylor v. Alabama, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982); Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 100 S.Ct. 2556, 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1980); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975).

Affirmed.

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