Matter of Welfare of Burns

284 N.W.2d 359, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1584
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJune 22, 1979
Docket49467
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 284 N.W.2d 359 (Matter of Welfare of Burns) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Welfare of Burns, 284 N.W.2d 359, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1584 (Mich. 1979).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Wiegmann
714 A.2d 841 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1998)
State v. Hobson
577 N.W.2d 825 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Valentine
935 P.2d 1294 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Glover v. State
594 A.2d 1224 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1991)
State v. Gardiner
814 P.2d 568 (Utah Supreme Court, 1991)
City of St. Louis Park v. Berg
433 N.W.2d 87 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1988)
Brown v. City of Oklahoma City
1986 OK CIV APP 1 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1986)
State v. Wick
331 N.W.2d 769 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1983)
Commonwealth v. Moreira
447 N.E.2d 1224 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1983)
State v. Kittleson
305 N.W.2d 787 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 N.W.2d 359, 1979 Minn. LEXIS 1584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-welfare-of-burns-minn-1979.