State v. Colosimo: Minnesota Anglers' Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Becomes 'The One that Got Away'
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2004
Publication Information
31 William Mitchell Law Review 527 (2004-2005)
Abstract
In State v. Colosimo, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that an expectation of privacy does not exist in a boat or other conveyance typically used to transport fish and it is therefore permissible for an armed conversation officer to conduct a nonconsensual inspection of the boat or other conveyance. This article examines the various opinions in the Colosimo case, including the opinion of the Minnesota Court of Appeals (which was reversed by the supreme court), as well as the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions of the supreme court. The authors provide a brief background of how the issue of stops and inspections by conservation officers has been dealt with in other jurisdictions before turning to a critique of the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Colosimo, which the authors consider far too expansive.
Repository Citation
Butterfoss, Edwin J. and Daly, Joseph L., "State v. Colosimo: Minnesota Anglers' Freedom from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Becomes 'The One that Got Away'" (2004). Faculty Scholarship. 270.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/facsch/270