Glenn E. Kelley

This case involved whether vehicle searches by private security guards at the Brainerd International Raceway, which uncovered drugs and other contraband later used in criminal prosecutions, qualified as governmental action subject to Fourth Amendment limits on unreasonable searches. The trial court found the searches to be purely private and denied suppression of the evidence, but the court of appeals reversed, concluding there was enough government involvement to trigger constitutional scrutiny. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's rulings, holding that the question of governmental involvement is a factual determination for the trial court and that its finding of insufficient involvement here was not clearly erroneous. The court noted that the security company had a contract with the private racetrack operator, its guards were mostly not police officers, and any coordination with law enforcement was limited to procedural reporting rather than direction or participation in the searches.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case arose from a legal malpractice suit in which the Shetka plaintiffs sought to add punitive damage claims against a law firm and its individual partners based on alleged misconduct by one partner, T. Jay Salmen, during bankruptcy-related advice, and then to discover the personal financial assets of the other partners to support those claims. The trial court permitted the amendment and ordered the discovery, but the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed and directed issuance of a writ of prohibition barring enforcement of the discovery order. The court held that Minnesota statutes require prima facie evidence of willful indifference by a defendant before punitive damages may be asserted or related financial discovery allowed, and that vicarious liability of non-participating partners for another partner's acts does not meet this threshold absent any evidence of the firm's or other partners' own willful conduct.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal of a continuation of a commitment for a person found to be mentally ill and dangerous (MID) under Minnesota law. The district court determined that DeWayne Colbert remained mentally ill due to paranoid schizophrenia but was no longer dangerous while taking medication, ordering his transfer to the Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. The court of appeals reversed, concluding the district court clearly erred in finding no ongoing danger. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the district court's decision, holding that the evidence did not compel a finding of dangerousness under Minn. Stat. § 253B.02, subd. 17, which requires clear and convincing proof of a substantial likelihood of future acts causing serious physical harm.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcare

In Benson v. Northern Gopher Enterprises, Inc., a tenant sued the owner and manager of an apartment building for personal injuries allegedly caused by carbon monoxide fumes infiltrating her unit from an underground parking garage. The plaintiff relied primarily on an expert witness to link the fumes to the garage, but the trial court excluded the opinion for lack of foundation and entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's rulings, concluding there was no abuse of discretion because the proposed testimony was speculative without evidence of elevated carbon monoxide levels in the garage during the time the plaintiff resided in the building. The court noted that decisions on the admissibility of expert evidence fall within the trial court's discretion on a case-by-case basis.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a farmer's lawsuit against a police officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged civil rights violations, along with related state tort claims, stemming from a late-night traffic stop that escalated into a vehicle chase and the use of force to effect an arrest. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, the court of appeals reinstated the claims against Officer Van Hal, and the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed that decision. The court reversed the reinstatement of the federal claims and most state claims against Van Hal, remanding only the state assault claim for trial. It reasoned that Van Hal reasonably relied on information from fellow officers regarding the initial stop and Johnson's flight, that his actions in stopping the vehicle and effecting the arrest did not constitute excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, and that the facts did not support the other tort claims.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Dennis Hannuksela's appeal from his conviction for the first-degree murder of Arthur Nelson, challenging the trial court's failure to suppress evidence from an allegedly invalid warrant, admission of his ex-wife's testimony about his observed acts and gestures during their marriage, and introduction of evidence regarding two prior aggravated forgeries he committed. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that none of the challenged rulings constituted reversible error. The court reasoned that the statutory marital privilege covers only confidential communications and does not extend to non-assertive conduct or gestures observed by a spouse, while the warrant and prior-crimes evidence were properly admitted under applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure