Justia Minnesota Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On August 10, 2021, Jeron Garding was arrested for first-degree narcotics charges after a drug-dog sniff of his parked car led to the discovery of approximately 410 grams of methamphetamine. Garding moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the drug-dog sniff. The district court held a contested omnibus hearing where State Trooper Jacob Bredsten testified about his observations, including the suspicious behavior of Garding and his passenger, signs of the passenger’s recent drug use, and a plastic bag in the backseat that appeared to contain drugs.The district court denied Garding’s motion to suppress, finding that Trooper Bredsten had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the drug-dog sniff based on the totality of the circumstances. Garding was subsequently convicted of first-degree possession of narcotics after a stipulated facts trial, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that the trooper lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the drug-dog sniff.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that, under the totality of the circumstances, Trooper Bredsten had reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct the drug-dog sniff. The court emphasized that the combination of the passenger’s signs of recent drug use, the appearance of the plastic bag in the backseat, and Garding’s flight to the woods provided sufficient grounds for the suspicion. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Garding’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. View "State v. Garding" on Justia Law

Renee Vasko challenged her property tax assessment on two grounds: the revocation of her homestead classification and the assessed value of her property. In 2018, McLeod County sent a homestead application to Vasko’s property address, which was returned as undeliverable. The County learned from the City of Lester Prairie that there had been no measurable water use at the property since 2016. Consequently, the County revoked the homestead classification effective January 2, 2019, and assessed the property at $110,100.Vasko filed a petition in the Minnesota Tax Court, disputing the revocation of the homestead classification and the property’s assessed value. She presented evidence, including mail addressed to the property, utility records, and testimony, to establish occupancy and use of the property. Vasko also compared her property’s valuation to five other properties in the City to argue that her home was overvalued. The Tax Court found that Vasko did not occupy and use the property as a homestead in 2019 and upheld the County’s valuation, concluding that Vasko did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumptive validity of the County’s assessment.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. The Court held that the Tax Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Vasko to show that the revocation of the homestead classification was unlawful and that the assessed value was incorrect. The Supreme Court found no clear error in the Tax Court’s findings that Vasko did not occupy and use the property as a homestead and that she failed to provide substantial evidence to challenge the County’s valuation. The decision of the Tax Court was affirmed. View "Vasko vs. County of McLeod" on Justia Law

A charter school was accused of manipulating attendance records to receive excess state aid. The Minnesota Department of Education (the Department) audited the school based on these allegations and found significant discrepancies, leading to a retroactive reduction in aid by over $1.3 million. The school appealed the audit results administratively, but the Department upheld its decision.The school then appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, arguing that the Department should have investigated the allegations under a statute dealing with violations of law (Minn. Stat. § 127A.42) rather than the statute used for auditing aid distributions (Minn. Stat. § 127A.41). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Department's decision, stating that the Department had the authority to conduct the audit under the statute it used.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the Department was required to investigate under the statute related to violations of law. The court held that the Department had the statutory authority to audit the school under Minn. Stat. § 127A.41 and was not required to investigate under Minn. Stat. § 127A.42, even though the allegations involved potentially illegal activity. The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the Department's actions were within its legal authority. View "Minnesota Internship Center vs. Minnesota Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves a challenge to the Re-Enfranchisement Act, which allows individuals convicted of felony-level offenses to vote once they are no longer incarcerated. The plaintiffs, individual taxpayers and the Minnesota Voters Alliance, argued that the Act violates the Minnesota Constitution by restoring only the right to vote rather than all civil rights. They also claimed that using public funds to educate and notify people about the new voting provision is unlawful if the Act itself is unconstitutional.The district court denied the petition, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court determined that taxpayer standing requires a challenge to an illegal expenditure or waste of tax money, which the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate. The court also found that the Minnesota Voters Alliance lacked associational standing because its members did not have standing.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court clarified that taxpayer standing exists only when the central dispute involves alleged unlawful disbursements of public funds. The court held that the plaintiffs could not manufacture standing by pointing to incidental expenditures related to implementing the law. Since the plaintiffs' challenge was primarily against the substantive law itself and not the expenditures, they lacked the necessary standing. Consequently, the Minnesota Voters Alliance also lacked associational standing. The court did not address the merits of the case due to the lack of standing. View "Minnesota Voters Alliance vs. Hunt" on Justia Law

A Wisconsin-based corporation, Uline, Inc., sells industrial and packaging products and employs sales representatives who visit customers in Minnesota. Uline did not pay Minnesota income or franchise taxes for 2014 and 2015, claiming exemption under 15 U.S.C. § 381, which protects certain out-of-state business activities from state taxation. The Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue audited Uline and assessed taxes for those years, arguing that Uline's activities in Minnesota went beyond mere solicitation of orders.The Minnesota Tax Court upheld the tax assessment, finding that Uline's sales representatives engaged in activities beyond solicitation, specifically the preparation of "Market News Notes," which included detailed market research and competitor information. Uline appealed, arguing that these activities were either protected solicitation or de minimis and thus not subject to state taxation.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Uline's activities created a sufficient nexus with Minnesota to justify the imposition of state taxes. The court found that the preparation of Market News Notes by Uline's sales team went beyond the solicitation of orders because it involved detailed market research that served independent business functions. The court also determined that these activities were not de minimis, as they were regular and systematic, with over 1,600 Market News Notes prepared during the two years in question.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the tax court's decision, holding that Uline's activities in Minnesota were not protected from state income or franchise taxation under 15 U.S.C. § 381 and were not de minimis. Therefore, Uline was subject to Minnesota state taxes for the years 2014 and 2015. View "Uline, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Revenue" on Justia Law

The case involves the fatal shooting of Abdi Abdi on September 10, 2021, in Moorhead, Minnesota. The shooter exited a Chrysler 200, chased Abdi, and shot him multiple times, resulting in Abdi's death. At the time of the shooting, Ibrahim Abdiaziz Isaac, the appellant, was driving on Interstate 94, approximately 100 miles away. The State's theory was that Isaac knew about the shooter's plan to kill Abdi and aided by purchasing the Chrysler 200 for the shooter.A grand jury indicted Isaac for first-degree premeditated murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory. Isaac waived his right to a jury trial, opting for a court trial instead. The district court found Isaac guilty and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of release. The court based its decision on circumstantial evidence, including cell phone data, surveillance footage, and eyewitness testimony, which suggested that Isaac and the shooter traveled together to purchase the Chrysler 200 and that Isaac filled the car with gas before the shooter used it to commit the murder.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court applied a two-step standard of review for circumstantial evidence, first identifying the circumstances proved and then determining whether these circumstances were consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis other than guilt. The court concluded that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Isaac knew about the shooter's plan to murder Abdi before the murder occurred. The court found that a rational hypothesis existed that Isaac only learned about the plan after the murder, as evidenced by his actions following a phone call from the shooter after the murder had taken place.The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed Isaac's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder under an aiding-and-abetting theory of criminal liability. View "State of Minnesota vs. Isaac" on Justia Law

The appellant, Earley Romero Blevins, was charged with two counts of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon after brandishing a machete at a woman and two men on a light rail platform in downtown Minneapolis. Blevins claimed he acted in self-defense after one of the men threatened him with a knife. The incident was captured on surveillance video, which showed Blevins swinging the machete for about a minute, causing the woman and the two men to retreat.The district court found Blevins guilty, concluding that he had a reasonable opportunity to retreat but failed to do so, thus his actions were not justified under Minnesota's self-defense statute. The court sentenced him to a presumptive 39-month prison term. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the evidence supported the finding that Blevins had a reasonable opportunity to retreat.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to address whether the judicially created duty to retreat when reasonably possible applies to a person claiming self-defense in committing the felony offense of second-degree assault-fear with a dangerous weapon. The court held that this duty does apply in such cases, specifically when the weapon is designed to cause death or great bodily harm. The court also concluded that the surveillance video evidence disproved Blevins's claim that he lacked a reasonable opportunity to retreat.The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that Blevins had a duty to retreat when reasonably possible before brandishing the machete and that the evidence showed he had such an opportunity. View "State of Minnesota vs. Blevins" on Justia Law

In February 2019, Keegan Brouillette was found guilty by a jury of two counts of felony domestic assault. On June 24, 2019, the district court sentenced him to 15 months in prison but stayed the execution of the sentence for five years, placing him on supervised probation. Brouillette did not appeal his conviction or sentence. In August 2021, after violating probation, the district court revoked his probation and executed the previously imposed 15-month sentence. Brouillette served his sentence and, in July 2022, filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging prosecutorial misconduct.The district court denied Brouillette’s petition as untimely, ruling that the August 2021 order executing the sentence was not a new sentence and did not restart the two-year deadline for filing a postconviction petition. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the August 2021 order merely executed the previously imposed sentence without modifying it.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the two-year limitations period for filing a postconviction petition under Minnesota Statutes section 590.01, subdivision 4(a), began with the original sentencing in June 2019 or the execution of the sentence in August 2021. The court held that the execution of a previously imposed sentence does not constitute a new sentence and, therefore, does not restart the two-year limitations period. The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, concluding that Brouillette’s petition was untimely as it was filed more than two years after the original sentencing in June 2019. View "Brouillette vs. State of Minnesota" on Justia Law

Melissa Zielinski was convicted of first-degree intentional murder and second-degree intentional murder under aiding-and-abetting theories. The case arose from the robbery and fatal shooting of Karl Henderson. Zielinski and her brother, Nicholas, planned to rob Henderson, who was known to keep large sums of money in a safe. During the robbery, Nicholas shot Henderson. Evidence included DNA on the stolen safe, phone location data, and witness testimony.The district court denied Zielinski’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence obtained from her cell phone and her statements to police, finding the search warrants valid and the police questioning lawful. Zielinski was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder. Her postconviction petition, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging the search warrants on particularity grounds, was summarily denied.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that any potential Fourth Amendment violation from police questioning was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Similarly, any Sixth Amendment violation from limiting cross-examination of Nicholas was also deemed harmless. The court agreed that the district court erred in entering convictions for both first-degree and second-degree murder, as the latter is a lesser-included offense of the former. The court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction, reversed the second-degree murder conviction, and remanded to vacate the latter. The court also upheld the denial of Zielinski’s postconviction relief petition, finding no reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different even if the challenged evidence had been excluded. View "State of Minnesota vs. Zielinski" on Justia Law

The case involves the valuation of two commercial properties in a Woodbury shopping center for tax purposes. The taxpayer, Tamarack Village Shopping Center, LP, challenged Washington County’s initial assessments of the properties, arguing that the tax court should have used an effective rent calculation to account for tenant improvement allowances and deducted lease-up costs due to an above-market vacancy rate.The tax court heard testimony from the taxpayer’s real property asset manager, the taxpayer’s expert appraiser, and the County’s expert appraiser. The tax court largely accepted the County’s appraiser’s opinions and rejected the taxpayer’s appraiser’s opinions. The tax court’s final value conclusions increased the properties’ assessed market values over the county assessor’s initial valuations. The taxpayer appealed, contending that the tax court erred in its analysis by not using an effective rent calculation and by not deducting lease-up costs.The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the tax court did not err in declining to use an effective rent calculation because the taxpayer’s tenant improvement allowances were typical of the market. The court also found that the tax court did not clearly err in declining to deduct lease-up costs from the property’s indicated value to account for its above-market vacancy rate, as the taxpayer failed to show that such a deduction was required. The court affirmed the tax court’s decision, upholding the increased assessed market values of the properties. View "Tamarack Village Shopping Center, LP vs. County of Washington" on Justia Law