MINNEAPOLIS — A divided Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a drunken driving conviction Wednesday in a case that turned on whether evidence that was unconstitutionally seized can be used anyway if authorities collected it in the good-faith belief that they were following binding legal precedents in place at the time.

While the majority in the 4-3 decision, written by Justice G. Barry Anderson, stressed that its holding was a narrow one and suggested that it’s not likely to affect many other cases, dissenting justices Alan Page, David Lillehaug and Lorie Gildea warned the impact may be broader.

Evidence seized illegally usually must be excluded from a defendant’s trial under federal and state constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The “exclusionary rule” is meant to deter police misconduct.

But as the majority noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted a number of good-faith exceptions to that rule. The Minnesota Supreme Court has repeatedly resisted such exceptions, the three dissenters countered.

At issue in this case was whether Minnesota should adopt an exception articulated in a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that covered circumstances under which binding precedents specifically authorized a particular police practice at the time.