Court Opinion

ID: 9496316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:23:07.501313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:29.502138
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
concurring separately.
Under the circumstances of this case, that is, that the police investigation clearly established a lack of sexual contact between Mr. Gunderson and the complaining woman, Minnesota Statute § 243.166, subd. 1(a)(1) and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statute in Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W.2d 711 (Minn.1999), turn reason and fairness on its head. Nonetheless, I agree with the Court that there is no Fourteenth Amendment violation established by Mr. Gunderson. Accordingly, I concur.