Minn. Stat. § 97A.251

State v. Colosimo · 2003 35 citations

+ 35 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Colosimo · 2002 5 citations

Colosimo was charged with hindering and obstructing an officer in the performance of his official duties, in violation of MinmStat. § 97A.251, subds. 1 and 2 (1998), and refusal to allow inspection of a boat, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 97A.251, *273 subd. 1(3). Colosimo moved to suppress the evidence of his refusal and to dismiss both charges, alleging that the evidence was acquired by Officer Steen’s illegal seizure of him. The district court dismissed the obstruction charge, holding that Colo-simo acted in good faith to assert his constitutional rights and no physical obstruction occurred, citing State v. Tomlin, 622 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.2001). But the court denied the motion as to the refusal charge, finding that Officer Steen’s conversation with Colosimo did not constitute a seizure because Oveson had already stopped the truck.

Colosimo was charged with hindering and obstructing an officer in the performance of his official duties, in violation of MinmStat. § 97A.251, subds. 1 and 2 (1998), and refusal to allow inspection of a boat, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 97A.251, *273 subd. 1(3). Colosimo moved to suppress the evidence of his refusal and to dismiss both charges, alleging that the evidence was acquired by Officer Steen’s illegal seizure of him. The district court dismissed the obstruction charge, holding that Colo-simo acted in good faith to assert his constitutional rights and no physical obstruction occurred, citing State v. Tomlin, 622 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.2001). But the court denied the motion as to the refusal charge, finding that Officer Steen’s conversation with Colosimo did not constitute a seizure because Oveson had already stopped the truck.

Colosimo was charged with hindering and obstructing an officer in the performance of his official duties, in violation of MinmStat. § 97A.251, subds. 1 and 2 (1998), and refusal to allow inspection of a boat, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 97A.251, *273 subd. 1(3). Colosimo moved to suppress the evidence of his refusal and to dismiss both charges, alleging that the evidence was acquired by Officer Steen’s illegal seizure of him. The district court dismissed the obstruction charge, holding that Colo-simo acted in good faith to assert his constitutional rights and no physical obstruction occurred, citing State v. Tomlin, 622 N.W.2d 546 (Minn.2001). But the court denied the motion as to the refusal charge, finding that Officer Steen’s conversation with Colosimo did not constitute a seizure because Oveson had already stopped the truck.

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Krenz · 2001 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.