1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 940 N.W.2d
  5. 940 N.W.2d 164 (2020)
 

IN RE K.M.

A19-0414, A19-0714.

940 N.W.2d 164 (2020)

IN RE K.M., Petitioner, K.M., Appellant, v. Burnsville Police Department, Respondent, State of Minnesota, Respondent, John Does 1-4, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: March 11, 2020.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Andrew S. Birrell , Ian S. Birrell , Marc E. Betinsky , Birrell Law Firm, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Elizabeth R. Duel, Ryan P. Garry , Ryan Garry Attorney LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant K.M.

Alina Schwartz , Campbell Knutson, P.A., Eagan, Minnesota, for respondent Burnsville Police Department.

Keith Ellison , Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Michael O. Freeman , Hennepin County Attorney, Jonathan P. Schmidt , Jean E. Burdorf , John Patrick Monnens , Assistant County Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent State of Minnesota.

Christopher W. Madel , Mack H. Reed , Stephen M. Premo , Madel PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants John Does 1-4.

Daniel J. Koewler , Ramsay Law Firm PLLC, Roseville, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

William Ward , Minnesota State Public Defender, Cathryn Middlebrook , Chief Appellate Public Defender, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Board of Public Defense.

Deborah Ellis , Eighth Circuit Amicus Committee, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Travis J. Smith , Murray County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

Robin M. Wolpert , Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Charles F. Webber , Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota State Bar Association.

Mark J. Schneider , Gary K. Luloff , Jennifer J. Crancer , Chestnut Cambronne PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Suburban Hennepin County Prosecutors Association.

OPINION

This case concerns the seizure of client files from an attorney's office, pursuant to a warrant, when the attorney is the target of an ongoing criminal investigation. After the search and seizure, the attorney filed a motion for the return of the seized property, including client files. The district court considered...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases