Court Opinion

ID: 9728574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:11:34.564844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:49.994112
License: Public Domain

ROGOSHESKE, Justice
(Concurring specially).
I would hold in this case that defendant’s second statement should be suppressed. This record is devoid of any justification much less explanation for a delay of 57 hours in arraigning defendant before a judge in Hennepin County during mid-week when presumably all of the several trial courts were operating. While I agree that the sanction of exclusion should not be applied rigidly to every violation of Rule 4.02, affording the state an opportunity on remand to justify the delay does not seem fair to defendant and may dilute the importance I believe this court should attach to prompt arraignment.