Court of Appeals Digest: May 11, 2026

Listen to this article

Civil Nonprecedential

Civil Commitment

SDP; Right to Self-Representation

Appellant civilly committed individual challenged the denial of his Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion seeking to vacate his indeterminate commitment as a sexually dangerous person and sexual psychopathic personality, arguing that the original commitment order was void and inequitable because the district court denied his request to waive counsel and represent himself during the initial commitment proceeding. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under rule 60.02(d) and (e). The court concluded that appellant failed to establish that the commitment order was void because neither the Due Process Clause nor existing precedent recognized a constitutional right to self-representation in an initial civil-commitment proceeding. The court further held that the Minnesota Supreme Court’s later decision in In re Civil Commitment of Benson—which recognized a committed person’s statutory ability to waive counsel in proceedings before the Commitment Appeal Panel—did not constitute a change in controlling law applicable to appellant’s original commitment proceedings, because appellant was not yet a committed person at the time he sought to represent himself. Affirmed.

A25-1446 In re Civ. Commitment of Hamilton (Washington County)

Contracts

Offset

Respondent roofing subcontractor sued appellant general contractor for unpaid amounts arising from a construction subcontract after the contractor refused to pay the agreed subcontract price and attempted to offset the value of insulation materials it had independently purchased for the project. Following a court trial, the district court entered judgment for the subcontractor on claims for breach of contract, account stated, and violation of Minnesota’s prompt-payment statute. The Court of Appeals held that the district court properly declined to offset damages because the subcontract unambiguously required any deduction for contractor-purchased materials to be based on a mutual decision of the parties, and no written modification or mutual agreement regarding the deduction was ever reached. The court further rejected the contractor’s equitable, promissory-estoppel, and good-faith arguments, concluding that the plain language of the subcontract controlled and that several theories were untimely or unsupported by the record. The court also upheld the district court’s determination that an account stated existed, emphasizing that the contractor retained the subcontractor’s invoice without objection for approximately ten months, made partial payment during that period, and only later disputed the amount owed. Finally, the court concluded that the subcontractor was entitled to attorney fees and statutory interest under Minn. Stat. § 337.10, subd. 3, because the contractor failed to timely pay undisputed amounts after receiving payment from the project owner. The court reversed in part, however, concluding that the district court improperly awarded duplicative damages by separately awarding overlapping breach-of-contract and statutory damages, and remanded for correction of the judgment to reflect the proper total damages award. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded..

A25-1148 Range Cornice & Roofing Co. v. Spectra Building Group, LLC (St. Louis County)

Costs

Prevailing Party

Appellant property owner challenged a district court order denying taxation of costs and disbursements after he prevailed on claims for conversion and replevin but recovered no damages. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that appellant was not a prevailing party. The court concluded that, although appellant technically succeeded on liability, he obtained no meaningful relief at trial because his property had already been returned through pretrial proceedings and the district court rejected his claims for damages and attorney fees. Emphasizing the need for a pragmatic assessment of the parties’ relative success, the court determined that appellant effectively gained nothing through the trial itself and therefore was not entitled to statutory costs or disbursements. Affirmed.

A25-1825 Johnson v. Bee (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Child Protection; Custody Transfer

Appellant mother challenged an order transferring permanent legal and physical custody of her children to their father following CHIPS proceedings, arguing that the county failed to make reasonable reunification efforts because it did not provide a referral for a court-ordered psychological evaluation. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the county’s reunification efforts were reasonable under the circumstances. The court concluded that the county provided extensive mental-health, visitation, transportation, and parenting-related services and made repeated efforts to coordinate with mother’s therapists and facilitate dialectical behavioral therapy, despite mother’s repeated refusal of referrals, inconsistent participation in services, and reluctance to authorize information-sharing. Affirmed.

A25-1954 In re Welfare of the Child(ren) of L.B. (Hennepin County)

Domestic Relations

Dissolution; Marital Property

Appellant-husband challenged the district court’s division of real property following dissolution of a short-term marriage, arguing that acreage property purchased before the marriage with proceeds from his premarital home should have been awarded entirely to him as nonmarital property. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the acreage property sold and dividing the proceeds equally between the spouses. The court concluded that the district court’s findings regarding wife’s substantial financial and labor contributions to the property—including cash contributions, remodeling expenses, and thousands of hours of labor—were supported by the record and credibility determinations entitled to deference. Affirmed.

A25-0757 Chang v. Chang (Rock County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time; Modification

Appellant-father challenged the denial of his motion for equal parenting time, arguing that the district court failed to maximize his parenting time and inadequately analyzed the children’s best interests. The Court of Appeals held that Minn. Stat. § 518.17 does not create a preference for maximizing parenting time and that the district court made sufficient best-interests findings by considering the parties’ conflict, father’s use of nonparent childcare during parenting time, and communication issues between mother and the children. Affirmed.

A25-1574 Manchik v. Manchik (Wright County)

Domestic Relations

Parenting Time; Vacations

Appellant-father challenged district court orders arising from an ongoing parenting-time dispute with respondent-mother concerning a planned vacation cruise that conflicted with mother’s birthday holiday parenting time. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying father’s request for relief, which the district court construed as a request for compensatory parenting time. The court concluded that mother did not improperly interfere with father’s parenting time because the controlling parenting-time order expressly provided that holiday parenting time took precedence over vacation time, and mother’s birthday fell during father’s proposed trip. The court also upheld the district court’s modification of the parenting-time exchange protocol, concluding that the revised exchange arrangement reasonably promoted clarity and the child’s best interests. Finally, the court affirmed the award of conduct-based attorney fees to mother, determining that father unreasonably contributed to the length and expense of the proceedings by pursuing a motion contradicted by the governing parenting-time order. Affirmed.

A25-0506 Adetifa v. Pay-Bayee (Hennepin County)

Harassment Restraining Orders

Collateral Estoppel

Pro se appellant challenged the denial of her second motion to vacate a harassment restraining order (HRO), arguing that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction because she had not been properly served. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that appellant was collaterally estopped from relitigating the service and jurisdiction issues previously resolved in denying her first motion to vacate the HRO. Affirmed.

A25-1655 Lee v. Strickland (Ramsey County)

Legal Malpractice

Expert Affidavit

Appellant former legal-services client challenged dismissal of his legal-malpractice-related claims against a law firm and its attorneys arising from their representation in a zoning and constitutional-rights lawsuit against a city. The Court of Appeals held that the district court properly dismissed the action for failure to comply with Minn. Stat. § 544.42’s expert-disclosure requirements. The court concluded that appellant’s breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were substantively legal-malpractice claims because they alleged failures relating to professional standards of attorney conduct, including inadequate discovery, poor communication, and inaccurate court filings. The court further held that expert testimony was required because the claims involved complex issues of causation and the “case-within-a-case” analysis necessary to establish that appellant would have prevailed in the underlying litigation absent the alleged malpractice. Rejecting appellant’s argument that the alleged misconduct was simple enough for a lay jury to evaluate without expert testimony, the court emphasized that determining whether additional discovery, depositions, or corrected filings would have changed the outcome of the underlying case would require expert analysis rather than speculation. Because appellant failed to serve the required expert-disclosure affidavit, dismissal was mandatory under the statute. Affirmed.

A25-1491 VanGelder v. Trautmann Martin Law PLLC (Hennepin County)

Medical Malpractice

Expert Affidavit

Appellant dental-malpractice plaintiff challenged summary judgment dismissing his claims against a treating dentist arising from complications following a tooth extraction that allegedly led to osteomyelitis, severe infection, hospitalization, and multiple tooth extractions. The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that plaintiff’s expert affidavit failed to satisfy the prima facie requirements of Minn. Stat. § 145.682. The court determined that the expert sufficiently outlined the chain of causation by explaining how the dentist’s alleged failure to completely remove tooth fragments created a persistent foreign body susceptible to infection, particularly given plaintiff’s uncontrolled diabetes, and how the retained root fragment allegedly served as a nidus for infection leading to osteomyelitis. The court further held that the district court improperly demanded that the expert definitively eliminate all alternative causes at the prima facie stage, which the statute does not require. The court also concluded that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert’s testimony under Minn. R. Evid. 702. The court determined that the expert—a former dentist and longtime dentistry professor with decades of experience treating infections and diabetic patients—was sufficiently qualified to opine on causation and infection-related complications, even if other specialists might have possessed greater expertise. Finally, the court held that the district court improperly treated alleged weaknesses in the factual basis of the expert’s opinions as admissibility defects rather than issues affecting weight and credibility for cross-examination and jury determination. Reversed and remanded.

A25-1358 Gerrety v. Bogdanowicz (Hennepin County)

Municipalities

Public Right-of-Ways

Appellant homeowner challenged summary judgment dismissing multiple constitutional and statutory claims after a city ordered him to remove landscaping he installed within a city-owned public right-of-way adjacent to his property. The Court of Appeals held that the city ordinance requiring a permit before occupying or using public right-of-way property was not unconstitutionally vague and plainly prohibited appellant’s installation of landscaping without prior city approval. The court further held that appellant’s takings and inverse-condemnation claims failed because the landscaping materials remained appellant’s property and the city merely required him to remove them from public land rather than confiscating or destroying them. The court also concluded that the city’s demand that appellant restore the right-of-way was remedial rather than punitive and therefore did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause. Finally, the court rejected appellant’s equal-protection claim because he failed to present evidence that the city treated similarly situated property owners more favorably by permitting comparable landscaping encroachments onto public property. Affirmed.

A25-1674 Allen v. City of Waconia (Carver County)

Orders for Protection

Relief from Judgment

Appellant husband challenged the denial of his Minn. R. Civ. P. 60.02 motion seeking relief from an order for protection (OFP), arguing that newly discovered evidence and respondent wife’s alleged misrepresentations required reopening the proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief because the purported newly discovered evidence—phone logs, Facetime records, and related materials—was known to appellant and could have been obtained before the original OFP hearing through due diligence. The court further held that appellant failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation warranting relief, concluding that the record did not support his claim that respondent misrepresented issues relating to his emotional-support animal or exaggerated his dangerousness. Affirmed.

A25-1912 Belich v. Belich (Anoka County)

Public Records

Review

Pro se appellant property owner sued the county attorney and the county’s recorder’s, auditor’s, and assessor’s offices alleging violations of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The county defendants moved for summary judgment after appellant failed to participate in discovery. The district court granted the motions as unopposed and awarded attorney fees after appellant failed to timely respond. Appellant appealed, asserting various arguments supported by what appeared in large part to be fictitious cases generated from the hallucinations of artificial intelligence. The Court of Appeals rejected the arguments as flawed and legally unsupported. Affirmed.

A25-1198 Petsinger v. Steele County Recorder’s Office (Steele County)

Real Property

Partition

Appellant brother challenged a district court order confirming referees’ recommendations in a partition action involving inherited lakeside property jointly owned with respondent brother. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering partition in kind with an equalizing payment after referees recommended awarding respondent the parcel containing a deteriorated cabin and awarding appellant two undeveloped parcels plus compensation. The court concluded that appellant failed to timely move to set aside the referees’ report or submit evidence showing that the referees’ factual findings or valuation conclusions were clearly erroneous or palpably against the evidence. The court further held that summary judgment for respondent was proper because appellant failed to present admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the amount of the equalizing payment or alleged property-related expenditures. The court emphasized that unsupported assertions and speculation about evidence that might later be developed were insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Affirmed.

A25-1646 Knowles v. Knowles (Cass County)

Real Property

Trespass

Appellant adjoining landowner challenged a judgment awarding damages for trespass after her septic system, structures, debris, and other property encroached onto respondent neighbor’s land for years following a boundary dispute. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that appellant intentionally caused objects to remain on respondent’s property and failed to remove them after receiving notice of the encroachment. The court concluded that appellant forfeited further litigation of her boundary-by-practical-location theory by repeatedly failing to comply with statutory survey and filing requirements under Minn. Stat. § 508.671 despite years of continuances and opportunities to cure deficiencies. The court further upheld the district court’s damages determination, emphasizing that the district court reasonably credited testimony from respondent’s excavation contractor regarding the substantial cost of removing the septic mound, debris, and potentially contaminated soil, while rejecting appellant’s lower competing estimates as not credible. The court also held that the district court acted within its discretion by admitting the county survey as a public record, photographs of the encroaching structures and septic system, and evidence relating to appellant’s threats against respondent, which supported the district court’s finding that respondent reasonably distrusted appellant’s proposed contractors. Affirmed.

A25-1130 Nilsson v. Ball (St. Louis County)

Unemployment Benefits

Employment Misconduct

Relator long-term maintenance employee challenged an unemployment-law judge’s determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits after being discharged for employment misconduct arising from an unapproved absence from work and failure to respond to employer calls. The Court of Appeals held that relator’s conduct constituted employment misconduct. The court concluded that relator knowingly failed to comply with the employer’s written leave policy by taking a full day off without approval, despite uncertainty about whether his request had been granted and despite having attended meetings where the updated policy was discussed. Rejecting relator’s reliance on the single-incident and good-faith exceptions, the court emphasized that a single incident may still constitute misconduct where the employee deliberately acts contrary to employer policy, and that relator was not exercising judgment requiring discretion because the policy plainly required prior approval and advance notice. Affirmed.

A25-1011 Benson v. Hous. & Redevelopment Aut. of Winona (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)

Zoning

Review

Appellant school district challenged a city’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance after the city prohibited the district from using industrial-zoned warehouse property to provide Postsecondary Enrollment Options Act (PSEO) trade-school instruction to high-school students dually enrolled in postsecondary programs. While litigation was pending, the city amended its zoning ordinance to expressly exclude dual-enrollment secondary students from the definition of “trade school.” The Court of Appeals held that the appeal was moot because the amended ordinance governed at the time of appellate review and foreclosed the challenged use regardless of the prior ordinance’s meaning. Appeal dismissed.

A25-1505 Indep. School Dist. No. 281 v. City of New Hope (Hennepin County)

Criminal Precedential

Administration of Medication

Appeals

Petitioner county sought a writ of prohibition to prevent enforcement of a district court order requiring the county to pay attorney fees for privately appointed counsel representing a criminal defendant in proceedings concerning involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication under Minn. Stat. § 611.47. The Court of Appeals held that an order requiring a county to pay attorney fees arising from the state’s motion under Minn. Stat. § 611.47, subd. 1, is independently appealable under Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 103.03(g). Because an adequate appellate remedy existed, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition was unavailable. Writ denied.

A26-0407 State v. Bader (In re Washington County) (Washington County)

Warrantless Seizure

Emergency Aid

Defendant challenged the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained after police boxed in her legally parked vehicle and placed tire-deflation devices under the tires in response to a “slumped motorist” report, arguing that the seizure lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, that the emergency-aid exception did not apply because the officer was not subjectively motivated to render aid, and that police improperly expanded the stop into a DWI investigation.

The Court of Appeals held that, when determining whether the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement justifies a seizure under article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, a police officer’s subjective intent is irrelevant. Here, the seizure was lawful under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement because the officer had an objectively reasonable basis to believe an emergency existed requiring immediate assistance. Affirmed.

A25-0834 State v. Gale (Hennepin County)

Civil Order Opinions

Unemployment Benefits

Reconsideration

Relator challenged the dismissal of his request for reconsideration following a determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits due to employment misconduct. The Court of Appeals held that the unemployment-law judge properly dismissed the request as untimely because relator filed it two days after the statutory 45-day deadline. Affirmed.

A25-1494 Horan v. Fairview Health Servs. (Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev.)

Criminal Nonprecedential

Assault

Bodily Harm

Defendant challenged her conviction for fourth-degree assault against a peace officer, arguing that the state failed to prove she inflicted demonstrable bodily harm and that the district court improperly rejected her Batson challenge after the state used a peremptory strike against the only Native American prospective juror. The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of demonstrable bodily harm, emphasizing the deputy’s testimony that defendant struck him hard enough to cause shocking pain, swelling, and discoloration to his temple, along with photographs corroborating visible injury. The court further held that the district court did not clearly err in overruling defendant’s Batson objection. The court determined that the state articulated race-neutral reasons for striking the juror, including the juror’s prior DWI conviction and his physical stature, which the state believed resembled the deputy’s and could affect perceptions regarding the alleged assault. Affirmed.

A25-0960 State v. Hatton (Beltrami County)

Assault

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged her convictions for attempted first-degree assault and second-degree assault arising from a domestic altercation with her former romantic partner, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent to inflict great bodily harm and that the district court abused its discretion by denying a downward dispositional departure. On remand from the Supreme Court, The Court of Appeals held that sufficient direct evidence supported the jury’s finding of intent, emphasizing testimony that defendant threatened to kill and stab the victim, targeted the victim’s neck with a sharp object, and acknowledged after the attack that she had cut the victim’s neck “wide open.” The court concluded that threats to kill, coupled with use of a weapon against a vulnerable area of the body, directly established intent to cause great bodily harm. The court further held that the district court acted within its broad sentencing discretion in denying a dispositional departure. Affirmed.

A23-1062 State v. Oliver (Dakota County)

Hearsay

Excited Utterances

Defendant challenged his domestic-assault convictions arising from violent altercations with his roommate and her teenage son, arguing that the district court improperly admitted recorded out-of-court statements given by both alleged victims to law enforcement. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the roommate’s recorded statement under the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule, concluding that the statement was made shortly after a traumatic assault while the roommate remained emotionally distressed, bruised, bloody, and under the stress of the events. The court further held that the district court properly admitted most of the son’s recorded statement as a prior consistent statement because defendant had challenged the son’s credibility through theories of fabrication, inconsistency, and self-defense. However, the court determined that one portion of the son’s statement—describing defendant slamming the roommate into a kitchen wall—should have been excluded because it introduced facts not covered in the son’s trial testimony. The court nevertheless concluded that the error was harmless in light of the limited prominence of the statement, conflicting testimony at trial, and strong evidence of guilt, including defendant’s own admissions that he grabbed the victims by the throat and slammed the son into a wall. Affirmed.

A25-0686 State v. Stolp-Thompson (Nicollet County)

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Prejudice

Petitioner sought to withdraw his guilty plea to first-degree controlled-substance sale, arguing that the plea was involuntary and unintelligent because counsel failed to adequately explain the plea agreement and related charges. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not show prejudice or allege that he would have rejected the plea agreement and proceeded to trial absent counsel’s alleged errors. The court further concluded that the plea was intelligent because the plea hearing repeatedly identified all charges included in the agreement, petitioner affirmed his understanding of the agreement and his rights, and he raised no confusion or objection when entering the pleas. Affirmed.

A25-1482 Pack v. State (Stearns County)

Insurance

No-Fault Benefits

Appellant automobile insurer challenged orders confirming a no-fault arbitration award granting medical-expense benefits to respondent insured following injuries sustained during an assault and carjacking outside a hospital parking area. The Court of Appeals held that respondent’s injuries arose out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle under Minnesota’s No-Fault Act. The court concluded that the vehicle was an active accessory to the injuries because the assailant approached respondent while she was in the car, assaulted her during a struggle involving her car keys, and immediately stole and drove away in the vehicle. The court further held that the assault was not an act of independent significance breaking the causal chain because the assault and carjacking were inextricably linked to the taking and use of the vehicle. Finally, the court determined that the vehicle was being used for transportation purposes because respondent was preparing to drive home when the encounter began and the assailant ultimately used the vehicle to flee the scene. Affirmed.

A25-1559 Reiter v. MemberSelect Ins. Co. (Ramsey County)

Postconviction Relief

Timeliness

Petitioner defendant challenged the summary denial of postconviction relief, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, sentencing, and counsel’s failure to file an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the petition was untimely because petitioner failed to establish that his claims arose within two years of filing the petition under the interests-of-justice exception. The court concluded that petitioner knew or should have known of counsel’s alleged deficiencies during plea negotiations and sentencing when they occurred and failed to allege sufficient facts showing that he only later discovered counsel had not filed an appeal. Because petitioner failed to plead facts establishing a timely exception to the statute of limitations, the postconviction court properly denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed.

A25-1526 Agarano v. State (Scott County)

Probation Revocation

Condition Violations

Defendant challenged the revocation of his probation following felony DWI convictions, arguing that the district court made inadequate findings and improperly relied on unsupported violations. The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking probation after defendant admitted violating probation conditions requiring sobriety, treatment completion, and reporting law-enforcement contact. The court concluded that the district court made adequate Austin and Modtland findings, emphasizing defendant’s relapse into alcohol use shortly after receiving a dispositional departure and his failure in treatment. However, the warrant of commitment improperly reflected convictions for two DWI counts arising from the same behavioral incident. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

A25-1748 State v. Halfhill (Wilkin County)

Theft

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant challenged his convictions for theft and unlawful possession of a firearm arising from the disappearance of a pistol belonging to a woman with whom he had a romantic relationship, arguing, inter alia, that the evidence was insufficient to prove possession of the firearm. The Court of Appeals held that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that defendant stole and possessed the pistol, emphasizing evidence that defendant repeatedly expressed interest in the firearm, was alone in the bedroom where it was stored immediately before it disappeared, left the residence carrying bundled clothing, and threatened the victim after learning police had been contacted. Affirmed.

A25-0790 State v. Olson (Scott County)

Traffic Stop

Expansion of Scope

Petitioner challenged the denial of postconviction relief from his conviction for first-degree controlled substance sale, arguing that law enforcement lacked reasonable suspicion to expand a traffic stop and probable cause to search his vehicle after a speeding stop. The Court of Appeals held that the odor of marijuana, defendant’s admission that he had smoked marijuana in the vehicle earlier that day, his nervous behavior, and other surrounding circumstances provided reasonable suspicion to expand the stop and probable cause to search the vehicle for additional contraband. The court further concluded that the deputy did not exceed the permissible scope of the search by inspecting a tampered-with infotainment compartment where additional contraband was found. Affirmed.

A25-1628 Ancke v. State (Chippewa County)

Warrantless Searches

Search Incident to Arrest

Defendant challenged his convictions for first-degree DWI test refusal and third-degree controlled-substance possession, arguing that the initial traffic stop for driving after cancellation was unlawful, that police conducted an invalid warrantless vehicle search, that the warrant for a blood or urine sample lacked probable cause, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his test-refusal conviction. The Court of Appeals held that defendant forfeited direct review of the legality of the stop by failing to raise the issue below and failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel because the record did not clearly demonstrate that the stop lacked a lawful basis. The court further held that the warrantless search of defendant’s vehicle was a valid search incident to arrest because officers had probable cause to arrest defendant for suspected DWI based on observed indicia of impairment, including glassy eyes, sweaty complexion, cotton mouth, and exaggerated movements. The court also concluded that the warrant for a blood or urine sample was supported by probable cause, emphasizing the observed indicia of impairment, defendant’s refusal to complete field sobriety tests, and the discovery of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in the vehicle. Finally, the court held that sufficient evidence supported the test-refusal conviction because the officer repeatedly offered defendant the option of providing either a blood or urine sample, and defendant refused both after being informed that refusal was a crime. Affirmed.

A25-0912 State v. Sisco (Beltrami County)