Court Opinion

ID: 9723323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:11:48.578838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:46.951634
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Kelly, Justice.
The State of Minnesota, Department of Public Safety, asks for clarification of the class of persons to which our decision in *428Prideaux v. State applies. The Department seeks prospective application only of the requirement that a police officer advise a driver of his right to confer with counsel. Appellant in his answer to the petition for rehearing accedes to this proposition, noting that it is implicit in the decision. We agree. Because police officers have reasonably relied on our earlier decision in State v. Palmer, 291 Minn. 302, 191 N. W. 2d 188 (1971), it was our intent that the informational requirement be applied only to cases arising after the date of the decision. The holding on the facts of the instant case was more narrow — appellant requested an opportunity to consult with an attorney and his request was denied. These circumstances define the impact of our holding to cases pending on the date of the decision in this court, district court, and county or municipal court. In all other cases predating the decision, no right to counsel will be recognized under the Rule of Palmer. Except for this clarification, the petition for rehearing is denied.